598 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
598 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
|
|
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 23:13:20 EDT
|
|
Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #760
|
|
|
|
Linux-Misc Digest #760, Volume #2 Wed, 14 Sep 94 23:13:20 EDT
|
|
|
|
Contents:
|
|
Re: OS/2 fan wants to try Linux.. What do I need ?? (todd)
|
|
Re: Partitioning Question (Jay Schlieske)
|
|
Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why??? (kieferal.asa@asa.org)
|
|
Re: alt.games.doom.linux (was Re: What about a votr on comp.os.linux.doom) (Matt Welsh)
|
|
Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ? (Kumaran Santhanam)
|
|
Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ? (Ralph Sims)
|
|
Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Shawn L. Baird)
|
|
Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem (Sean Williams)
|
|
Differences between DIP and SLIPLOGIN? (Harald Vergara)
|
|
Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Per Abrahamsen)
|
|
Linux vs NeXTSTEP (S. Hosseini)
|
|
Re: VHDL for Linux...? ("Brian E. Gallew")
|
|
Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Bill West)
|
|
diskless boot? (Dennis B Meilicke)
|
|
Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (MS-DOS lives!) (Mark Stockton)
|
|
Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ?? (Andrew R. Tefft)
|
|
Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60 (Andrew R. Tefft)
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: todd@pvi.com (todd)
|
|
Subject: Re: OS/2 fan wants to try Linux.. What do I need ??
|
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:11:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
I recently added Linux to my OS/2 machine and am quite
|
|
happy, so I feel somewhat qualified to answer this post:
|
|
|
|
Jim Chisholm (Jim@JChisholm.Phys.Dal.Ca) wrote:
|
|
: Hi folks..
|
|
: I'm a long time advocate of OS/2 and I am curious about Linux..
|
|
|
|
: 1)will it run on a386DX40 8M ?
|
|
|
|
Yes, but slowly.
|
|
|
|
: 2)how much HD is required ?
|
|
|
|
Give it 100 MB for comfort.
|
|
|
|
: 3)does it require it's own partition or can it live alongside DOS and OS/2 in
|
|
: the same partition ?
|
|
|
|
I'd recommend making a dedicated Linux partition.
|
|
|
|
: 4)can it be booted from DOS or does it require it's own boot manager ?
|
|
|
|
Boot it from the OS/2 boot manager if you're using that. That's
|
|
what I do.
|
|
|
|
: 5)what are the files required to get me up and running ?
|
|
: 6)where can I get these ?
|
|
|
|
Order one of the Slackware 2.0 CDROMs from any of a number of
|
|
distributors. I got mine from Morse Telecommunications for
|
|
about $50, which includes the installation book (printed, of
|
|
course) and three months of tech support.
|
|
|
|
Todd.
|
|
--
|
|
Todd Bradley--Supreme Ruler of The Galaxy | Visual Numerics, Boulder
|
|
| 303-581-3293
|
|
"Welcome to Hell. Here's your shotgun." | todd@boulder.vni.com
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: Jay Schlieske <schliesk@sos.net>
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.liinux.help,comp.os.linux.development
|
|
Subject: Re: Partitioning Question
|
|
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Reply-To: Jay Schlieske <schliesk@sos.sos.net>
|
|
|
|
On 12 Sep 1994, David J Topper wrote:
|
|
|
|
> So once I set my partitions (say 250 for Linux and 270 for DOS) using FIPS
|
|
> or FDISK - is there a way to resize the Linux partition? I mean, is there a
|
|
> way other than backing up all the data on the Linux partition, deleting that
|
|
> partition, then resizing the DOS partition, then remounting the Linux partition,
|
|
> then restoring the data on it.
|
|
|
|
Hi all !
|
|
|
|
I would be interested in replies to this question, being that I had to
|
|
give up approx 35 MB of my 545 MB drive, due to non standard translations
|
|
done by my IDE accellerator, when heads go over 1024. ( I was time
|
|
limited when transferring my linux files off of my 345 ) I have since
|
|
learned I can work around this with the new kernel I have, (1.1.45) since
|
|
it queries the drive directly.
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
> I've downloaded quite a bit of stuff for installing Linux. I don't remember
|
|
> exactly, but I think it was all the a,ap,x,xd,xv and a few other disks (all the
|
|
> gnu stuff too). All tolled, I think I've got about 40+. The HOWTO says a
|
|
> ROUGH estimate is about 2.5 megs per disk. I'm just not sure how much to
|
|
> allocate for this thing. 250 seems fine but I would love to get away with 200
|
|
> so DOS would have more room to breathe.
|
|
>
|
|
> Thanks,
|
|
>
|
|
> DT
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
I had almost everything on a 105 MB partition for a few months, till I
|
|
replaced my second drive. I found that when I gave it 200 + 16 swap,
|
|
I had lots to spare *but* it's quickly filling up, as I'm adding new
|
|
stuff to it. (wine, dosemu, TeX). I think it depends on how you want
|
|
to use it. The stuff available for linux seems endless.
|
|
|
|
Yggdrassil has a plug'n'play cd and slackware has a cd version also,
|
|
where I hear you can run some of the less frequently used binaries
|
|
from, ( also hear it's slower ).
|
|
|
|
I'd say you can more than get away with 200 MB (a least for a few
|
|
months)
|
|
|
|
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Jay o
|
|
Jay Schlieske <#< " Above all.... have fun. "
|
|
+*+ Credits: smartmail __>^>__ by * Linux-Pine3.90-Smail-Term201-PoP +*+
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
|
|
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why???
|
|
From: kieferal.asa@asa.org
|
|
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 15:04:20 MDT
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <DJOHNSON.94Sep13204609@arnold.ucsd.edu>, <djohnson@arnold.ucsd.edu>
|
|
writes:
|
|
> In article <jeffpkCvy2B3.ECr@netcom.com> jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)
|
|
writes:
|
|
>
|
|
> (regarding OS9)
|
|
> > The multi-tasking turns OFF every time you enter the
|
|
> > kernel! Yes, thats right, this so-called multi-tasking system has a
|
|
> > non-re-entrant kernel.
|
|
>
|
|
> Sounds like UNIX! (well, maybe not some of the more forward looking
|
|
> variants, but...)
|
|
>
|
|
> > >(a multitasking, modular kernel in less than 128k. You gotta be impressed
|
|
> > >by that)
|
|
> >
|
|
> > Why should I be impressed? UNIX was orginally developed and run on 64k
|
|
> > LSI-11. And it did a whole lot more a whole lot better.
|
|
>
|
|
> You're simplifying things too much. The original unix didn't do
|
|
> a whole lot. And it also relied upon swapping, so that 64K wasn't
|
|
> as restrictive as it might seem (it swapped whole processes though,
|
|
> instead of paging). The PDP had nicer machines to work with,
|
|
> especially memory-management-wise, than most OS9 machines.
|
|
> --
|
|
OS9 was designed as a stripped down clone of UNIX. It was written in assembly
|
|
language and ran in 64K RAM with no swap file on a 6809 chip (hence the OS9
|
|
name.) It has grown in many ways since then. There is now an Intel version
|
|
(OS9000.) It has a specific market that it is the leading operating system in:
|
|
embedded controllers in an industrial environment. It is enough of a real-time
|
|
operating system, with enough flexibility and power to do this task well. It
|
|
is the operating system for CDI systems. It was not designed to compete with
|
|
UNIX, so it should not be compared directly with it.
|
|
|
|
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
|
|
Subject: Re: alt.games.doom.linux (was Re: What about a votr on comp.os.linux.doom)
|
|
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 15:38:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <HPV.94Sep14164649@lynx.uio.no> hpv@lynx.uio.no (Hans Peter Verne) writes:
|
|
>The problem is that alt.games.doom is very crowded and noisy, with tons of
|
|
>post about satanism, what is your favorite level or weapon and such...
|
|
|
|
Wait a minute. comp.os.linux.misc isn't about weapons and Satanism?
|
|
|
|
mdw [guess I'm in the wrong newsfroup]
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: ksanthan@nitride.Berkeley.EDU (Kumaran Santhanam)
|
|
Subject: Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ?
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 1994 07:56:33 GMT
|
|
Reply-To: ksanthan@eecs.berkeley.edu
|
|
|
|
Ralph Sims (ralphs@halcyon.halcyon.com) wrote:
|
|
: esler@ch.hp.com (Kevin Esler) writes:
|
|
|
|
: >I am soon to purchase a system to run Linux. It will have a SCSI hard
|
|
: >disk. It will also have a double speed CD-ROM drive. Should I shell
|
|
: >out the extra $50-$100 to get a SCSI CD-ROM, as distinct from a
|
|
: >non-SCSI ?
|
|
|
|
: Yep.
|
|
|
|
Definitely get the SCSI! Linux recognizes it and works with it
|
|
perfectly as long as it can tango with your SCSI controller.
|
|
|
|
Plus, when transferring CD -> Hard Drive, I believe Linux can do a
|
|
direct transfer on the SCSI bus. Someone please correct me if I'm
|
|
wrong about this. All I know is that Linux was _very_ much faster
|
|
than OS/2 when transferring from the CD to Hard Drive.
|
|
|
|
later,
|
|
Kumaran
|
|
--
|
|
Kumaran Santhanam ksanthan@eecs.berkeley.edu
|
|
|
|
Goodfader's Law:
|
|
Under any system, a few sharpies will beat the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: ralphs@halcyon.halcyon.com (Ralph Sims)
|
|
Subject: Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ?
|
|
Date: 13 Sep 1994 05:37:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
esler@ch.hp.com (Kevin Esler) writes:
|
|
|
|
>I am soon to purchase a system to run Linux. It will have a SCSI hard
|
|
>disk. It will also have a double speed CD-ROM drive. Should I shell
|
|
>out the extra $50-$100 to get a SCSI CD-ROM, as distinct from a
|
|
>non-SCSI ?
|
|
|
|
Yep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: scarrow@netcom.com (Shawn L. Baird)
|
|
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
|
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:36:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis) writes:
|
|
>Linux is DOS. DOS stands only for "Disk Operating System". Most all
|
|
>operating systems are DOSes. It did not read MS-"DOS", which is a
|
|
>different story all together.....
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, a case of semantics. I prefer to consider a "Disk Operating System" to
|
|
be an operating system whose primary concern is simply serving as a way to
|
|
access physical file storage. DOS does not, for example, manage tasks to any
|
|
great extent, nor does it provide multiuser capabilities, etc. So, in that
|
|
sense, I see the term DOS as being a limit to the capabilities of the OS in
|
|
question.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: swilli@corp.cssi.net (Sean Williams)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.prog,dc.org.linux-users
|
|
Subject: Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem
|
|
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:23:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
I have installed Linux v1.0 Slackware release for 24hr SLIP access
|
|
into ClarkNet and SMTP for my Novell 3.11 LAN. Everything works
|
|
great except some mail that is sent out through SMTP causes a
|
|
uucp_neighbors error. I know there is a missing file called
|
|
/usr/lib/smail/routers that will correct this with the right config
|
|
in it. The error is :
|
|
|
|
Xdefer: <address> reason: <ERR_127> router uucp_neighbors :
|
|
command '/usr/bin/uuname' returned exit status EX_32256
|
|
|
|
I know calling uuname is a bug in SMAIL and a routers file will fix
|
|
this but I don't know wht to put in it.
|
|
|
|
What do I need to put in /usr/lib/smail/routers to get these messages
|
|
delivered? Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
* Sean Williams (14% CNE) | swilli@corp.cssi.net *
|
|
* Corporate Information Systems Administrator | *
|
|
* Communications & Systems Specialists, Inc. | phone: (410)290-9500 *
|
|
* Columbia MD, 21046 | fax : (410)290-7012 *
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: vergara@inf-wiss.uni-konstanz.de (Harald Vergara )
|
|
Subject: Differences between DIP and SLIPLOGIN?
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 94 18:21:36
|
|
|
|
Hallo,
|
|
|
|
can someone explain the main differences between DIP and SLIPLOGIN if
|
|
it's used as sever software.
|
|
|
|
Used hardware:
|
|
2 AST-fourport-boards
|
|
|
|
Used Linux-version:
|
|
kernel 1.0.9
|
|
DIP 3.3.7-uri
|
|
|
|
I would apreciate if someone can give me a recommendation (please send
|
|
me the answer with e-mail as well).
|
|
|
|
regards, Harald
|
|
--
|
|
|
|
======== _____
|
|
/ ____)________________________________________
|
|
_/ /__| Harald Vergara |
|
|
// (__ | Dept. of Information Science |
|
|
/ |\\\| University of Konstanz |
|
|
/ (___|__________________________________________|
|
|
/ ____) Harald.Vergara@uni-konstanz.de
|
|
/ _,-'
|
|
/ /
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen)
|
|
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
|
|
Date: 15 Sep 1994 01:22:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope that Ian's main point don't get lost:
|
|
|
|
DON'T INVENT YOUR OWN COPYRIGHT
|
|
|
|
please.
|
|
|
|
Please use a copyright that some real (not net) lawyer have read and
|
|
approved, both the GPL and the BSD copyright are quite fine, depending
|
|
on what you want.
|
|
|
|
The typical programmer is approximately as good at writing legal texts
|
|
as the typical lawyer is at programming. Expect your copyright to be
|
|
full of legal "bugs" if you write it yourself.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: saied@lando.wustl.edu (S. Hosseini)
|
|
Subject: Linux vs NeXTSTEP
|
|
Date: 13 Sep 1994 19:46:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Hi Linuxers,
|
|
|
|
I know there are lots of Linuxers with high performance PC's, so
|
|
there is a good chance that some of them have thought about
|
|
installing NeXTSTEP, or have had experience with
|
|
it and now converted to Linux, or maybe currently working with both
|
|
OS's on the same platorm.
|
|
I want to ask the following:
|
|
|
|
Given the same high performance PC platform,
|
|
|
|
1. Which is cheaper to get?
|
|
(Answer is easy) Linux, of course. This is one of
|
|
the main advantages of Linux. Otherwise I wouldn't be using it.
|
|
|
|
2. Which one is easier to install and has less problem with existing
|
|
PC hardware?
|
|
|
|
3. Which one has more choice of application software?
|
|
|
|
4. Which one is faster (for the same task) ?
|
|
|
|
5. Which one has a capability that the other doesn't have?
|
|
|
|
6. Which one has better future? (this is a question for discussion
|
|
and not for a definite answer.)
|
|
|
|
SH
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: "Brian E. Gallew" <geek+@CMU.EDU>
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.lsi.cad,comp.lang.vhdl
|
|
Subject: Re: VHDL for Linux...?
|
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 20:06:49 -0400
|
|
|
|
In a similar vein, has anyone seen LogicWorks for *nix? I can't use
|
|
the Mac version, and the DOS version sucks dead goats (dies a *lot*
|
|
and won't run under dosemu). Does anybody know just what command
|
|
switches LogicWorks accepts?
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
| It's nice to be important, but it's *important* to suck up to the |
|
|
| sysadmin -- Me |
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: billw@starbase.neosoft.com (Bill West)
|
|
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 1994 22:40:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
olav woelfelschneider (wosch@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: Hey people... calm down!
|
|
: What does DOS stand for in this case? Yes! It is 'Doom Operating System' !
|
|
|
|
: So, since Linux can run doom, it is indeed a ... Ah, I see, you got me! (: (:
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Olav,
|
|
: *grinning*
|
|
|
|
This thread started as a joke and now it is a debate over operating
|
|
systems:-)
|
|
--
|
|
******************************************************************************
|
|
Bill West
|
|
Houston TX
|
|
email: billw@starbase.neosoft.com
|
|
******************************************************************************
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: dbm@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dennis B Meilicke)
|
|
Subject: diskless boot?
|
|
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:55:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Haven't seen this is any of the FAQs (unless I missed it...):
|
|
|
|
I would like to be able to boot linux from our diskless workstations.
|
|
Has anyone done this? Currently, we use Novell's remote boot feature
|
|
to load DOS. I would then like to run a DOS program that talks tftp
|
|
to a UNIX server where the Linux kernel would reside. This would
|
|
boot and NFS mount all the system stuff.
|
|
|
|
An alternative would be a small boot floppy that NFS mounts the rest
|
|
of the system. I did this once using an old version of the SLS, but I
|
|
would rather do without the boot floppy.
|
|
|
|
So, am I dreaming? Or can this be done?
|
|
|
|
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: marks@schooner.sys.hou.compaq.com (Mark Stockton)
|
|
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (MS-DOS lives!)
|
|
Reply-To: marks@schooner.sys.hou.compaq.com
|
|
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:27:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Shawn L. Baird (scarrow@netcom.com) wrote:
|
|
: mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis) writes:
|
|
: >My point, originally, is that the word DOS has nothing to do with
|
|
: >Microsoft... neither does the word "windows". The proper names for those
|
|
: >products always have been, and still are MS-DOS and MS-Windows! Microsoft
|
|
|
|
: >could not, cannot, and will not be able to register common, generic
|
|
: >English words to their exclusive use. That would be like trying to
|
|
|
|
: Yet come companies have become so definite that their names have become
|
|
: the common term for the product. It's not proper to call a kleenex a
|
|
: kleenex, but it certainly is common. The fact is that regardless of the
|
|
: proper name of things, people are going to occasionally use a different
|
|
: common term. DOS is one of these things, so is Windows (or Windoze if
|
|
: you prefer).
|
|
|
|
: >(Now substitute "windows", above in context of MS-Windows, X-Windows,
|
|
|
|
: Here we talk of proper names and you don't even use the correct ones above.
|
|
: X is called simply that, and MIT, I believe it is, has long grumbled about
|
|
: people calling it X-Windows. X Windowing System might be acceptable, I seem
|
|
: to recall that their objection is to the X being directly tied to the plural
|
|
: form of window. I've never heard of the Amiga environment being called
|
|
: Amiga Windows, either. I believe the proper name is still Intuition (and
|
|
: Workbench which represents sort of an AmigaDOS frontend, but is not really
|
|
: the windowing system proper). Most people don't seem to be getting confused
|
|
: as to what is what, so why worry?
|
|
|
|
You know, I almost jumped in to this again last night and I was actually
|
|
going to use the kleenex and X examples myself. Well, since I've now jumped
|
|
back into it, I'll say some of the things I was going to say.
|
|
|
|
MS-DOS, PC-DOS, etc... and UNIX are not a DOS! That's a misnomer. These
|
|
are full fledged operating systems that provide disk services along with
|
|
lots of other services (memory management, program loading, console, etc...).
|
|
You *may* be able to call the collection of disk services and the disk driver
|
|
a DOS within MS DOS, but I don't think that's completely accurate in the case
|
|
of MS DOS. Further, an application does not "quit to a DOS", it returns to
|
|
an operating system which in this case, happens to be misnamed "DOS".
|
|
|
|
This is all pretty silly and a waste of bandwidth. After all, this started
|
|
when someone either didn't understand a joke, or was so sarcastic that his
|
|
humor flew over a lot of our heads. At the risk of continuing to be the
|
|
victim of a possible troll, I've got one last thought.
|
|
|
|
What's the proper way to refer to the type of computer that most of us are
|
|
running Linux on? IBM Compatible? Certainly not. Compatible with what?
|
|
Amstrad? How about IBM Compatible Personal Computer? No, that could refer
|
|
to an AIX box. IBM Compatible Personal Computer based on Intel architecture?
|
|
No way! Which Intel architecture using which Intel chip? We just lost
|
|
"compatible". I got it. IBM Compatible Personal Computer based on
|
|
Intel architecture with an EISA/ISA/MCA bus and an Intel x86/x88/Pentium
|
|
processor... no. I wouldn't want to leave out AMD.
|
|
|
|
PC (political correctness) is too much trouble for me! At the risk
|
|
of offending Mac users, referring to Apple Computer Corp's Macintosh,
|
|
not the hat, I'll keep using "PC" for what I have on my desk. And
|
|
I'll use "DOS" to refer to that OS I'm still forced to use so often.
|
|
|
|
MarkS
|
|
--
|
|
marks@schooner.sys.hou.compaq.com
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: teffta@erie.ge.com (Andrew R. Tefft)
|
|
Subject: Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ??
|
|
Reply-To: teffta@erie.ge.com
|
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 12:17:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article sag@crcnis1.unl.edu, jbettis@cse.unl.edu (Jeremy Bettis) writes:
|
|
>How can I run doom w/o a window manager though.. I haven't been able to yet.
|
|
|
|
Depends on what window manager you normally use. olvwm is usually started
|
|
as the last thing in the .xinitrc file, which means if you kill it,
|
|
your X session exits. twm on the other hand is usually run in the background,
|
|
and an xterm is the last thing in the .xinitrc file, so the x session doesn't
|
|
end until that xterm is killed. I am not sure how people normally use fvwm;
|
|
I suspect like olwm because of the quit entry in the menu.
|
|
|
|
You can change your .xinitrc not to start up a window manager (make
|
|
sure your initial windows give you some viable typing area!), or change
|
|
it so that killing your window manager does not end your session.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Andy Tefft - new, expanded .sig - teffta@erie.ge.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: teffta@erie.ge.com (Andrew R. Tefft)
|
|
Subject: Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60
|
|
Reply-To: teffta@erie.ge.com
|
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 12:21:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article 1326@yacc.central.de, engel@yacc.central.de (C. Engelmann) writes:
|
|
>danpop@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
|
|
>
|
|
>>You seem to ignore the fact that the performance of a Linux box does not
|
|
>>depend exclusively on the cpu speed. The hard disk performance is also
|
|
>>essential, and here the 486 box is at a clear advantage. The extra disk
|
|
>>space is a bonus, too.
|
|
>
|
|
>Harddisk-speed isn't that important in Linux.
|
|
|
|
This is always heated debate. A more general answer is that if you have enough
|
|
ram, disk performance lessens in importance, because memory gets used as a
|
|
fast disk cache, and you also reduce the incidence of swapping.
|
|
|
|
> CPU-speed is definitely more valuable.
|
|
|
|
(cpu speed being a generic relative processing speed, not raw clock speed of course)
|
|
|
|
Again, if you are low on ram, cpu speed is almost meaningless, because
|
|
the swapping is the real bottleneck, and no matter how fast your disk
|
|
is, it's a lot slower than ram. Now if you have *enough* memory, then
|
|
cpu is, by my last paragraph, probably much more important than disk speed.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Andy Tefft - new, expanded .sig - teffta@erie.ge.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
** 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
|
|
******************************
|