Discussion:
SYSTEMD? EGAD!
Add Reply
gareth evans
2020-09-08 11:08:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Not knowing what was the systemd referred to in this NG,
I googled for it.

EGAD!

Have the marketing people responsible for Microsoft's
Bloatware taken over LINUX?

My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)

Up till now, LINUX semed to be an improvement over MSDOS
in terms of file access control, and the representation of
hardware devices as part of the file system.

(Pace that I am viewing LINUX as a single user system, not
a system with the capability of multiple remote log-ons)
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-08 11:13:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.

Niklas
--
Microsoft's software "Wizards" show that their marketing department
is envisioning Tolkien but their coders are more into Pratchett.
-- Anthony de Boer, asr
J. Clarke
2020-09-08 11:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".

LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-08 13:27:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot
loader, and maybe not even a very good one.

Niklas
--
"Thank you," said Himmler, who found the Windows file management system a
diabolical confoundment. 'And they accuse _me_ of crimes against humanity,' he
thought as he settled himself in at his desk. 'Wilhelm Gates, you are a beast,
and your family will pay.' -- _Final_Impact_, John Birmingham
Douglas Miller
2020-09-08 13:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
...
Post by J. Clarke
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot
loader, and maybe not even a very good one.
Niklas
...
Just using Linux and MS-DOS is the same sentence is nonsensical. It's like comparing Apples to Bauxite.
Thomas Koenig
2020-09-08 16:21:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Douglas Miller
Just using Linux and MS-DOS is the same sentence is
nonsensical.
Not quite.

The sentence "You can use DOSBOX to run MS-DOS program under Linux"
makes perfect sense.

:-)
Douglas Miller
2020-09-08 16:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Douglas Miller
Just using Linux and MS-DOS is the same sentence is
nonsensical.
Not quite.
The sentence "You can use DOSBOX to run MS-DOS program under Linux"
makes perfect sense.
:-)
Quite. "Absolutely nothing is absolute", "Without exception, there are always exceptions", "If things were different, things would be different".
Bob Eager
2020-09-08 14:31:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX was little more
than a vehicle for launching programs, ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with
provision for multi-tasking (multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot
loader, and maybe not even a very good one.
But try to get Linux to run in 64kB of RAM.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-08 14:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Niklas Karlsson
I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot
loader, and maybe not even a very good one.
But try to get Linux to run in 64kB of RAM.
True, for that you need LUnix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUnix

Niklas
--
One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking
zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C
programs. -- Robert Firth
gareth evans
2020-09-08 15:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
The kernel of UNIX would be largely indistinguishable from the kernel
of other OSs, launching and rescheduling programs, hence my comment
regarding multi tasking / programming.
a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
2020-09-10 11:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Before Linux were Minix, Coherent and 386BSD. Your claim
probably is about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is
needed to run wide variety of useful programs. I never used
Coherent, but given descriptions it is pretty clear that
that Coherent had much more functionality than Linux-0.01.

The difference was that Linux and 386BSD had free licence and
consequently potential to grow. One can speculate why Linux
developed faster than 386BSD (and successors like Free BSD):
- creator of 386BSD after free realease wanted to switch
to proprietary licence
- famus ATT versus Berkely process
- GPL
but without Linux we would probably live in FreeBSD world.
--
Waldek Hebisch
Bob Eager
2020-09-10 11:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX was little more
than a vehicle for launching programs, ie, an uppity MSDOS, but
with provision for multi-tasking (multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open
source UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that
was full enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and
student use used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite
costly.
Before Linux were Minix, Coherent and 386BSD. Your claim probably is
about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is needed to
run wide variety of useful programs. I never used Coherent, but given
descriptions it is pretty clear that that Coherent had much more
functionality than Linux-0.01.
You beat me to it! I used Minix for a while, and even rebuilt it on a
PC Portable. It was a bit painful.

386BSD was indeed buggy, but it worked. It was clear, from reading the
source code, that they never really understood how to program the 8259
interrupt controller. I did some fixes, I think.

Things changed at work (major new job) and it was a couple of years
before I returned to 386BSD, by which time I decided to use FreeBSD
(1.1 I think). I hadn't stopped using UNIX systems, though; that was
what I'd used at work since 1975.

And still using FreeBSD!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
J. Clarke
2020-09-10 12:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX was little more
than a vehicle for launching programs, ie, an uppity MSDOS, but
with provision for multi-tasking (multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open
source UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that
was full enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and
student use used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite
costly.
Before Linux were Minix, Coherent and 386BSD. Your claim probably is
about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is needed to
run wide variety of useful programs. I never used Coherent, but given
descriptions it is pretty clear that that Coherent had much more
functionality than Linux-0.01.
You beat me to it! I used Minix for a while, and even rebuilt it on a
PC Portable. It was a bit painful.
386BSD was indeed buggy, but it worked. It was clear, from reading the
source code, that they never really understood how to program the 8259
interrupt controller. I did some fixes, I think.
Things changed at work (major new job) and it was a couple of years
before I returned to 386BSD, by which time I decided to use FreeBSD
(1.1 I think). I hadn't stopped using UNIX systems, though; that was
what I'd used at work since 1975.
And still using FreeBSD!
Which wasn't sanitized of AT&T code until Linux had been out for
several years. Stealing AT&T licensed code is still using AT&T
licensed code.
gareth evans
2020-09-10 16:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
... they never really understood how to program the 8259
interrupt controller.
Fought against that in 1981 on a PABX development,

Herald / KBX100 at Pye TMC in Malmesbury.

Did not behave as expected.

IIRC, not edge triggered but level triggered with edge
lockout. A very strange design decision by Intel.
Bob Eager
2020-09-10 17:37:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gareth evans
... they never really understood how to program the 8259 interrupt
controller.
Fought against that in 1981 on a PABX development,
Herald / KBX100 at Pye TMC in Malmesbury.
Did not behave as expected.
IIRC, not edge triggered but level triggered with edge lockout. A very
strange design decision by Intel.
Yes, although the issues the Jolitzes had were more to do with basic
concepts!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
J. Clarke
2020-09-10 12:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Before Linux were Minix,
Linux started out as a rewrite of Minix to address its shortcomings.
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Coherent
Was a proprietary commercial product. It did not become open source
until 2015, long, long after Linux became well established.
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
and 386BSD.
I was not aware that 386BSD was unencumbered.
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Your claim
probably is about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
So would you have tried to run Amazon on Minix?
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is
needed to run wide variety of useful programs. I never used
Coherent, but given descriptions it is pretty clear that
that Coherent had much more functionality than Linux-0.01.
The difference was that Linux and 386BSD had free licence and
consequently potential to grow.
What part of "open source" are you having trouble with?
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
One can speculate why Linux
- creator of 386BSD after free realease wanted to switch
to proprietary licence
- famus ATT versus Berkely process
- GPL
but without Linux we would probably live in FreeBSD world.
Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
Stefan Möding
2020-09-10 12:32:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago.
Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now.
But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for
example:

- legacy config files
- systemd network config
- netplan
- NetworkManager
- ...?

Linux could have done better.
--
Stefan
Dan Espen
2020-09-10 13:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Möding
Post by J. Clarke
Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago.
Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now.
But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for
- legacy config files
- systemd network config
- netplan
- NetworkManager
- ...?
Huh?

You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?

I managed to go through most of those evolutions
of network support you mention without touching a thing.

I'm noticing Fedora (Redhat) has gotten better and better at
supporting release upgrades. Way back around FC 10 I had one
upgrade go so bad that I had to download and reinstall.

Since then I've come all the way to FC 32 without having
any problems doing release upgrades.
Post by Stefan Möding
Linux could have done better.
Apparently 'systemd network config" is an example of Linux
doing better.

Excuse me I need to put on my asbestos suit now.
--
Dan Espen
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-10 13:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Stefan Möding
I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago.
Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now.
But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for
[various solutions]
Post by Dan Espen
Huh?
You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?
That's fine for a workstation with DHCP available on the network. For
servers, yes, you can use DHCP (likely with a particular address/MAC
pair configured on the DHCP server), but so far as I've seen, the most
common solution by far is to simply configure a static IP locally on
your server.

That requires digging rather deeper into whatever network configuration
solution your distro is using at the moment.

Niklas
--
"... although point and click pretty much means you have run out
of ammo, which is not the point at all." -- David Jacoby
Dan Espen
2020-09-10 13:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Stefan Möding
I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago.
Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now.
But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for
[various solutions]
Post by Dan Espen
Huh?
You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?
That's fine for a workstation with DHCP available on the network. For
servers, yes, you can use DHCP (likely with a particular address/MAC
pair configured on the DHCP server), but so far as I've seen, the most
common solution by far is to simply configure a static IP locally on
your server.
That requires digging rather deeper into whatever network configuration
solution your distro is using at the moment.
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
--
Dan Espen
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-10 13:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
No doubt there is, but most servers don't have X.

Niklas
--
TV cookery-shows are about as valid a concept as dancing about plate-
tectonics.
-- Tanuki in asr
Dan Espen
2020-09-10 14:00:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Dan Espen
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
No doubt there is, but most servers don't have X.
And they don't need it on the server.

Years ago when we installed an early RH server release we did
put it on a PC with a terminal attached but we ended up moving that
terminal somewhere else. We still used it's GUI to do admin.

Come to think of it, I wonder what the Wayland people are planning for
server support?

Back in the day, I remember a few of the configuration tools falling
back to text mode when they had to. I don't think they do that much
anymore.
--
Dan Espen
Douglas Miller
2020-09-10 14:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
RHEL installation on servers with static IP addresses just works for me. I do network installs, so the network must be configured before booting the installer, but I'm pretty sure if you configure the network in the installer VNC you'll get the same result: it just works.
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-10 14:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Douglas Miller
RHEL installation on servers with static IP addresses just works for me. I do network installs, so the network must be configured before booting the installer, but I'm pretty sure if you configure the network in the installer VNC you'll get the same result: it just works.
Sure, speccing it in the installer works fine (and I'm pretty sure you
can also do it in a Kickstart file), but sometimes you need to change
things around later.

Niklas
--
I defy anyone to find a mountain whereupon the dew is this particular
colour, and then return to tell me about it. And no fair wearing
rad-suits for the journey.
-- Carl Jacobs
Scott Lurndal
2020-09-10 16:01:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
RHEL installation on servers with static IP addresses just works for me. I =
do network installs, so the network must be configured before booting the i=
nstaller, but I'm pretty sure if you configure the network in the installer=
VNC you'll get the same result: it just works.
Kickstart using PXE. You never need to even touch the server being installed. DHCP supplies
the IP address and the name of the boot server automatically, and kickstart will configure
the network interfaces during the install as approporiate for the network they're being
installed on.

That's how all of our hundreds of linux servers are provisioned. There are a dozen or
so open-source provisioning software packages that do this for you if you want. Some
one racks up a new machine in a remote datacenter, and the IT guys push a virtual button
to provision it from half a continent away.
Chris
2020-09-10 16:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Dan Espen
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
No doubt there is, but most servers don't have X.
And they don't need it on the server.
Years ago when we installed an early RH server release we did
put it on a PC with a terminal attached but we ended up moving that
terminal somewhere else. We still used it's GUI to do admin.
Come to think of it, I wonder what the Wayland people are planning for
server support?
Back in the day, I remember a few of the configuration tools falling
back to text mode when they had to. I don't think they do that much
anymore.
Don't know about Linux, but both FreeBSD and Solaris support text only
or gui installs. Use both here, but in this lab, never use dhcp, always
fixed ip, as it makes it easier to locate any given machine by
hostname alone. Do have dhcp server capability on a couple of machines,
but its only enabled for setup of devices that only support dhcp for
initial config. After that, fixed ip only.

Most modern servers have a built in graphics adapters that can
be used for initial install and ongoing use, but also support command
line install as well...

Chris
Andy Leighton
2020-09-10 16:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris
Don't know about Linux, but both FreeBSD and Solaris support text only
or gui installs. Use both here, but in this lab, never use dhcp, always
fixed ip, as it makes it easier to locate any given machine by
hostname alone.
Yep my home server is running without any gui interface and with a fixed
IP. All handled from a standard Linux install. Same as the web servers I
manage.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Chris
2020-09-10 17:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Leighton
Post by Chris
Don't know about Linux, but both FreeBSD and Solaris support text only
or gui installs. Use both here, but in this lab, never use dhcp, always
fixed ip, as it makes it easier to locate any given machine by
hostname alone.
Yep my home server is running without any gui interface and with a fixed
IP. All handled from a standard Linux install. Same as the web servers I
manage.
Other point is that for a large site, if the dhcp server goes down,
nothing runs. Fixed ip makes each machine self contained in that
respect...

Chris
Scott Lurndal
2020-09-10 23:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Andy Leighton
Post by Chris
Don't know about Linux, but both FreeBSD and Solaris support text only
or gui installs. Use both here, but in this lab, never use dhcp, always
fixed ip, as it makes it easier to locate any given machine by
hostname alone.
Yep my home server is running without any gui interface and with a fixed
IP. All handled from a standard Linux install. Same as the web servers I
manage.
Other point is that for a large site, if the dhcp server goes down,
nothing runs. Fixed ip makes each machine self contained in that
respect...
Large sites will have redundant DHCP servers, generally, and generous
TTL on the leases.
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-11 06:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Chris
Other point is that for a large site, if the dhcp server goes down,
nothing runs. Fixed ip makes each machine self contained in that
respect...
Large sites will have redundant DHCP servers, generally, and generous
TTL on the leases.
Lease length is always a balancing act. Too short, and yes, you're
vulnerable if anything happens to the DHCP infrastructure; too long, and
you're in for a lot of pain when you need to rejigger the network.

I saw one shop that had infinite leases. THAT made for fun times when
things changed in the network!

Niklas
--
"... I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab.
I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate.
All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last week.
Time to die...". - Peter Gutmann in alt.sysadmin.recovery
Bob Eager
2020-09-10 23:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris
Other point is that for a large site, if the dhcp server goes down,
nothing runs. Fixed ip makes each machine self contained in that
respect...
DHCP failover has been a thing for years.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Chris
2020-09-11 00:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Chris
Other point is that for a large site, if the dhcp server goes down,
nothing runs. Fixed ip makes each machine self contained in that
respect...
DHCP failover has been a thing for years.
I'm sure that's right, but reliable systems design tries to minimise
single points of failure and interdependencies between the various
subsystems. Dhcp is overkill for small networks, imho, lazy man's
host id control. Dinosaurs just use host files, of course :-).

Yet another reason to instinctively dislike systemd,
interdepedencie...

Chris
JimP
2020-09-11 14:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Chris
Other point is that for a large site, if the dhcp server goes down,
nothing runs. Fixed ip makes each machine self contained in that
respect...
DHCP failover has been a thing for years.
Cableone didn't have that tech know how for years.
--
Jim
Charlie Gibbs
2020-09-10 16:24:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Dan Espen
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
No doubt there is, but most servers don't have X.
Who needs X? For me, the one must-have when setting up a new system
is a second computer with a working network interface and web browser.
Then I can look up the instructions for setting up /etc/network/interfaces.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-10 17:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Who needs X? For me, the one must-have when setting up a new system
is a second computer with a working network interface and web browser.
Then I can look up the instructions for setting up /etc/network/interfaces.
I recently built a new shell server based on Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS, after
for the longest time using a Debian machine that belonged in a museum.
I've not really had a lot of Ubuntu exposure; for work I've mostly dealt
with the Red Hat family.

I was surprised to find an /etc/network/interfaces file of 0 bytes.
Googling revealed that it was using netplan, so the network
configuration is in a YAML file under /etc/netplan.

Not bad, mind you. Reasonably pleasant file format to deal with.

Niklas
--
When being picked up against their will by larger creatures, cats and human
children share not only the ability to temporarily sprout extra limbs and
perform incredible acts of contortionism, but also to temporarily increase their
weight.
Andreas Kohlbach
2020-09-10 21:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Who needs X? For me, the one must-have when setting up a new system
is a second computer with a working network interface and web browser.
Then I can look up the instructions for setting up /etc/network/interfaces.
I use(d) text browsers without GUI, like lynx. But today many pages are
"protected" by Cloudflare and such which needs some scripts running. lynx
getting a "not permitted" or some similar errors. Today you need a GUI. :-(
--
Andreas
Mike Spencer
2020-09-11 05:12:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Who needs X? For me, the one must-have when setting up a new system
is a second computer with a working network interface and web browser.
Second that.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Then I can look up the instructions for setting up
/etc/network/interfaces.
And everything else. Who can remember all the details for something
complex that you do once every few years? Who can even remember to put
all the hacks, tweaks and config details accumulated over years in a
helper TO-DO file?
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Charlie Gibbs
2020-09-11 20:41:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Spencer
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Who needs X? For me, the one must-have when setting up a new system
is a second computer with a working network interface and web browser.
Second that.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Then I can look up the instructions for setting up
/etc/network/interfaces.
And everything else. Who can remember all the details for something
complex that you do once every few years? Who can even remember to put
all the hacks, tweaks and config details accumulated over years in a
helper TO-DO file?
I came across a file listing all the essential steps and gotchas
that I wrote the last time I set up a system. Too bad I had
forgotten about it and only came across it when I was nearly
finished figuring it out all over again...
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Bob Eager
2020-09-11 21:11:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Spencer
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Who needs X? For me, the one must-have when setting up a new system
is a second computer with a working network interface and web browser.
Second that.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Then I can look up the instructions for setting up
/etc/network/interfaces.
And everything else. Who can remember all the details for something
complex that you do once every few years? Who can even remember to put
all the hacks, tweaks and config details accumulated over years in a
helper TO-DO file?
I came across a file listing all the essential steps and gotchas that I
wrote the last time I set up a system. Too bad I had forgotten about it
and only came across it when I was nearly finished figuring it out all
over again...
I have a hardback A4 log book for each computer. And I keep the old ones.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Chris
2020-09-12 14:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Mike Spencer
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Who needs X? For me, the one must-have when setting up a new system
is a second computer with a working network interface and web browser.
Second that.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Then I can look up the instructions for setting up
/etc/network/interfaces.
And everything else. Who can remember all the details for something
complex that you do once every few years? Who can even remember to put
all the hacks, tweaks and config details accumulated over years in a
helper TO-DO file?
I came across a file listing all the essential steps and gotchas that I
wrote the last time I set up a system. Too bad I had forgotten about it
and only came across it when I was nearly finished figuring it out all
over again...
I have a hardback A4 log book for each computer. And I keep the old ones.
Similar thing here, 4 ring binders, indexed, tab for each system.
Different ring binder for each class of system worked with.
Some hand scribbled and some properly typed records of systems and
configurations, experiments etc, but have been caught out by being a
little too terse at times...

Chris
Bob Eager
2020-09-12 16:03:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Bob Eager
I have a hardback A4 log book for each computer. And I keep the old ones.
Similar thing here, 4 ring binders, indexed, tab for each system.
Different ring binder for each class of system worked with.
Some hand scribbled and some properly typed records of systems and
configurations, experiments etc, but have been caught out by being a
little too terse at times...
Yes, I end up sticking in small printed bits sometimes.

I've also started putting non-trivial config files into a subversion
repository.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Melzzzzz
2020-09-10 23:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Dan Espen
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
No doubt there is, but most servers don't have X.
Exactly. And configuring it ain't rocket science as well :)
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Niklas
--
current job title: senior software engineer
skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell...

press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
Stefan Möding
2020-09-11 06:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Dan Espen
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
No doubt there is, but most servers don't have X.
Exactly. And configuring it ain't rocket science as well :)
I’ve worked at a place where many Linux servers were running X only because
some sysadmin was unable to do the job without all the GUI tools.
--
Stefan
Melzzzzz
2020-09-10 23:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Stefan Möding
I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago.
Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now.
But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for
[various solutions]
Post by Dan Espen
Huh?
You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?
That's fine for a workstation with DHCP available on the network. For
servers, yes, you can use DHCP (likely with a particular address/MAC
pair configured on the DHCP server), but so far as I've seen, the most
common solution by far is to simply configure a static IP locally on
your server.
That requires digging rather deeper into whatever network configuration
solution your distro is using at the moment.
Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static
IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro.
If you are doing it on server, you probably don't want GUI...
--
current job title: senior software engineer
skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell...

press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
Stefan Möding
2020-09-10 13:54:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?
I need to do do automatic installations & configurations for multiple distros
and I wish there would be a uniform way.
Post by Dan Espen
Apparently 'systemd network config" is an example of Linux
doing better.
Excuse me I need to put on my asbestos suit now.
I like the systemd way of network configuration. After getting rid of some
legacy machine I hoped for doing it the systemd way.

Unfortunately RedHat (I believe they pay for much of the systemd work) decided
to not support systemd network configuration for RedHat-8. The binary is not
available for RedHat-8/CentOS-8 (unless you compile it yourself).
--
Stefan
Dan Espen
2020-09-10 14:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Möding
Post by Dan Espen
You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?
I need to do do automatic installations & configurations for multiple distros
and I wish there would be a uniform way.
Post by Dan Espen
Apparently 'systemd network config" is an example of Linux
doing better.
Excuse me I need to put on my asbestos suit now.
I like the systemd way of network configuration. After getting rid of some
legacy machine I hoped for doing it the systemd way.
Unfortunately RedHat (I believe they pay for much of the systemd work) decided
to not support systemd network configuration for RedHat-8. The binary is not
available for RedHat-8/CentOS-8 (unless you compile it yourself).
Well seems like a necessary consequence of changing things to make them better.

Looks like you can get a package, but not from Redhat:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650342
--
Dan Espen
Melzzzzz
2020-09-10 23:57:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Möding
Post by Dan Espen
You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?
I need to do do automatic installations & configurations for multiple distros
and I wish there would be a uniform way.
You have ifconfig and ip...
Post by Stefan Möding
Post by Dan Espen
Apparently 'systemd network config" is an example of Linux
doing better.
Excuse me I need to put on my asbestos suit now.
I like the systemd way of network configuration. After getting rid of some
legacy machine I hoped for doing it the systemd way.
Unfortunately RedHat (I believe they pay for much of the systemd work) decided
to not support systemd network configuration for RedHat-8. The binary is not
available for RedHat-8/CentOS-8 (unless you compile it yourself).
--
current job title: senior software engineer
skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell...

press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
Scott Lurndal
2020-09-10 15:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Stefan Möding
Post by J. Clarke
Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago.
Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now.
But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for
- legacy config files
- systemd network config
- netplan
- NetworkManager
- ...?
Huh?
You just install it and your network works.
What is this "setting up network interfaces"
you speak of?
Well, one of my linux boxes has a trunking connection
to a managed switch which carries two VLANs. There
are four virtual machines on that linux system for which
one of the VLANs is a DMZ containing internet-facing
web servers and mail relays. The other VLAN is internal.

You can't set up that configuration using the NetworkManager
or systemd crap.

With pre-systemd, it was adding four or five
environment variables to /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-eth0.
Peter Flass
2020-09-10 16:53:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Möding
Post by J. Clarke
Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago.
Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now.
But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for
- legacy config files
- systemd network config
- netplan
- NetworkManager
- ...?
Linux could have done better.
Agreed. As I’ve said elsewhere, everyone thinks they have a better of how
to do things. Maybe they do, but sometimes consistent beats better.
--
Pete
a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
2020-09-10 16:09:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Before Linux were Minix,
Linux started out as a rewrite of Minix to address its shortcomings.
This is rather inprecise. Minix had its shortcomings. I am not
aware of serious use of Minix, but my lack of info does not
prove that there were none. Certainly was not replacement for
UNIX(TM) but was solid enough to usable in _some_ serious setups.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Coherent
Was a proprietary commercial product. It did not become open source
until 2015, long, long after Linux became well established.
Well, you wrote about AT&T, Coherent was independent developement.
And quite a bit cheaper.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
and 386BSD.
I was not aware that 386BSD was unencumbered.
You are aware of AT&T versus Berkeley process, arent you? 386BSD
contained code that was released under BSD style licence, most
came from official Berkeley release.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Your claim
probably is about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
So would you have tried to run Amazon on Minix?
There are applications intermediate between running Amazon and
"recreational and student use". One resonable use would be
for lab equipement (AFAIK intersting intrument used to
run UNIX(TM) at that time). Or a machine for few users.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is
needed to run wide variety of useful programs. I never used
Coherent, but given descriptions it is pretty clear that
that Coherent had much more functionality than Linux-0.01.
The difference was that Linux and 386BSD had free licence and
consequently potential to grow.
What part of "open source" are you having trouble with?
I have no trouble with open source. You seem to have trouble
with reading or writing. Is it that hard to write
"I agree" if it is what you mean?

Or maybe you just look for opportunity to start a flame war?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
One can speculate why Linux
- creator of 386BSD after free realease wanted to switch
to proprietary licence
- famus ATT versus Berkely process
- GPL
but without Linux we would probably live in FreeBSD world.
Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
--
Waldek Hebisch
J. Clarke
2020-09-10 16:17:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Before Linux were Minix,
Linux started out as a rewrite of Minix to address its shortcomings.
This is rather inprecise. Minix had its shortcomings. I am not
aware of serious use of Minix, but my lack of info does not
prove that there were none. Certainly was not replacement for
UNIX(TM) but was solid enough to usable in _some_ serious setups.
In what way is it imprecise? Linus Torvalds had Minix. He wasn't
happy with it, he set out to redo the kernel, he did, what he came up
with was a significant improvent, and so we have Linux.
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Coherent
Was a proprietary commercial product. It did not become open source
until 2015, long, long after Linux became well established.
Well, you wrote about AT&T, Coherent was independent developement.
And quite a bit cheaper.
For certain values. It sold for something like 500 bucks. That's
about what I paid for System V for a 286.
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
and 386BSD.
I was not aware that 386BSD was unencumbered.
You are aware of AT&T versus Berkeley process, arent you? 386BSD
contained code that was released under BSD style licence, most
came from official Berkeley release.
I am aware of multiple lawsuits between AT&T and Berkeley. That BSD
did something does not mean that what they did was legal, as they
found out the hard way.
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Your claim
probably is about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
So would you have tried to run Amazon on Minix?
There are applications intermediate between running Amazon and
"recreational and student use". One resonable use would be
for lab equipement (AFAIK intersting intrument used to
run UNIX(TM) at that time). Or a machine for few users.
Well that's the thing, Linux is robust enough to run Amazon or Google.
Minix never was.
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is
needed to run wide variety of useful programs. I never used
Coherent, but given descriptions it is pretty clear that
that Coherent had much more functionality than Linux-0.01.
The difference was that Linux and 386BSD had free licence and
consequently potential to grow.
What part of "open source" are you having trouble with?
I have no trouble with open source. You seem to have trouble
with reading or writing. Is it that hard to write
"I agree" if it is what you mean?
Pot, kettle. You started out disagreeing with me, now I'm supposed to
agree with your disagreement?
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Or maybe you just look for opportunity to start a flame war?
Et tu?
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
One can speculate why Linux
- creator of 386BSD after free realease wanted to switch
to proprietary licence
- famus ATT versus Berkely process
- GPL
but without Linux we would probably live in FreeBSD world.
Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
Peter Flass
2020-09-10 16:53:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Before Linux were Minix,
Linux started out as a rewrite of Minix to address its shortcomings.
This is rather inprecise. Minix had its shortcomings. I am not
aware of serious use of Minix, but my lack of info does not
prove that there were none. Certainly was not replacement for
UNIX(TM) but was solid enough to usable in _some_ serious setups.
In what way is it imprecise? Linus Torvalds had Minix. He wasn't
happy with it, he set out to redo the kernel, he did, what he came up
with was a significant improvent, and so we have Linux.
The vast improvements in hardware made the difference. I think I first
looked at Minix on an XT where it barely fit. I think by the time Linux
became popular most machines were Pentium or better, with a lot more RAM
and disk.
--
Pete
Thomas Koenig
2020-09-11 13:22:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
I think by the time Linux
became popular most machines were Pentium or better, with a lot more RAM
and disk.
I fist ran Linux on a 486 (I think) from the first version of
Slackware ever, downloaded via the the only PC in the computer
center that could connect to the mainframe, which was the only
way into the Internet.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2020-09-11 13:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Peter Flass
I think by the time Linux
became popular most machines were Pentium or better, with a lot more RAM
and disk.
I fist ran Linux on a 486 (I think) from the first version of
Slackware ever, downloaded via the the only PC in the computer
center that could connect to the mainframe, which was the only
way into the Internet.
Of course the epochal V7 ran in 64K..

Interestingly IBM had a commercial System-III based Unix called, I think,
PC-IX that ran on the 8088 IBM-PC. You did have to have a hard drive.
It fudged memory protection with the segment registers, and if you compiled
your programs with the provided C compiler, you were "unlikely" to be able
to crash the system with a user program.

I wonder how many copies they actually sold?
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Bob Eager
2020-09-11 14:11:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I think by the time Linux became popular most machines were Pentium or
better, with a lot more RAM and disk.
I fist ran Linux on a 486 (I think) from the first version of Slackware
ever, downloaded via the the only PC in the computer center that could
connect to the mainframe, which was the only way into the Internet.
Of course the epochal V7 ran in 64K..
Strictly speaking, it ran in 56kB. The top 8kB was memory mapped
registers for CPU and I/O control.

I am currently resurrecting an operating system that ran on the PDP-11.
It's a tight squeeze for any meaningful multitasking system.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Interestingly IBM had a commercial System-III based Unix called, I
think, PC-IX that ran on the 8088 IBM-PC. You did have to have a hard
drive.
A colleague and me were jointly approached by Addison-Wesley to write PC
books based on IBM software. He got the PC/IX book, and I got PC-DOS.

I did quite well with royalties. He didn't.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Mike Spencer
2020-09-11 23:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
I think by the time Linux became popular most machines were Pentium
or better, with a lot more RAM and disk.
I fist ran Linux on a 486 (I think) from the first version of
Slackware ever, downloaded via the the only PC in the computer
center that could connect to the mainframe, which was the only
way into the Internet.
I bought a 2nd hand Pentium for my launch into Linux in '99. Later,
I put it on a 486 for a demo for a group of enthusiasts keen on this
new internet thing. Poor demo because X was too sluggish to be
convincing. (Was fine on my home Pentium.)
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Scott Lurndal
2020-09-10 17:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Linux started out as a rewrite of Minix to address its shortcomings.
This is rather inprecise. Minix had its shortcomings. I am not
aware of serious use of Minix, but my lack of info does not
prove that there were none. Certainly was not replacement for
UNIX(TM) but was solid enough to usable in _some_ serious setups.
In what way is it imprecise? Linus Torvalds had Minix. He wasn't
happy with it, he set out to redo the kernel, he did, what he came up
with was a significant improvent, and so we have Linux.
Minix was a teaching tool. It was never a production OS or widely
used.
Bob Eager
2020-09-10 17:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In what way is it imprecise? Linus Torvalds had Minix. He wasn't happy
with it, he set out to redo the kernel, he did, what he came up with was
a significant improvent, and so we have Linux.
Of course. Minix was a teaching tool. It didn't even have memory
management or protection. I ran it on an 8088 (actually, no - it was a
V20).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Bob Eager
2020-09-10 17:34:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Linux started out as a rewrite of Minix to address its shortcomings.
This is rather inprecise. Minix had its shortcomings. I am not aware
of serious use of Minix, but my lack of info does not prove that there
were none.
Tanenbaum only intended its as a teaching tool, but it got away from him!
Certainly was not replacement for UNIX(TM) but was solid
enough to usable in _some_ serious setups.
Intel CPUs...
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-09-10 16:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:20:04 +0000 (UTC)
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
The difference was that Linux and 386BSD had free licence and
consequently potential to grow. One can speculate why Linux
- creator of 386BSD after free realease wanted to switch
to proprietary licence
- famus ATT versus Berkely process
That lawsuit was a big issue and a serious worry to BSD users at
the time.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Peter Flass
2020-09-10 16:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@math.uni.wroc.pl
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by gareth evans
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
"crippled Unix".
LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Before Linux were Minix, Coherent and 386BSD. Your claim
probably is about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is
needed to run wide variety of useful programs. I never used
Coherent, but given descriptions it is pretty clear that
that Coherent had much more functionality than Linux-0.01.
I played with Minix back in the day. It was very slow and limited. I tried
it only because I wanted to get some familiarity with unix, and it did
that, but I can’t imagine anyone trying to so anything useful with it.
--
Pete
Niklas Karlsson
2020-09-10 17:05:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
I played with Minix back in the day. It was very slow and limited. I tried
it only because I wanted to get some familiarity with unix, and it did
that, but I can’t imagine anyone trying to so anything useful with it.
I seem to recall firing it up on my Amiga 500 in the early 90s. I did
not enjoy the experience much and soon went back to AmigaOS.

Niklas
--
So basically you're not really choosing based on level of sanity as you
originally claimed, you just happen to like one sort of insanity more
than the other. Fair enough, we all have our insanity preferences.
-- Steve VanDevender, asr
Stefan Möding
2020-09-10 17:13:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Peter Flass
I played with Minix back in the day. It was very slow and limited. I tried
it only because I wanted to get some familiarity with unix, and it did
that, but I can’t imagine anyone trying to so anything useful with it.
I seem to recall firing it up on my Amiga 500 in the early 90s. I did
not enjoy the experience much and soon went back to AmigaOS.
Keep in mind that Minix was a University project: students should be able to
study the source code and run it on cheap hardware at home.
--
Stefan
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2020-09-10 19:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Möding
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Peter Flass
I played with Minix back in the day. It was very slow and limited. I tried
it only because I wanted to get some familiarity with unix, and it did
that, but I can’t imagine anyone trying to so anything useful with it.
I seem to recall firing it up on my Amiga 500 in the early 90s. I did
not enjoy the experience much and soon went back to AmigaOS.
Keep in mind that Minix was a University project: students should be able to
study the source code and run it on cheap hardware at home.
--
Stefan
There was Comer's XINU as well. Originally ran on LSI-11s I think but came
out with a PC compatible version as well. It was the subject OS for his OS
textbook which was very nice.

(IIRC, XINU was more an embedded type OS than something trying to be a Unix
clone though)
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Bob Eager
2020-09-10 17:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Peter Flass
I played with Minix back in the day. It was very slow and limited. I
tried it only because I wanted to get some familiarity with unix, and
it did that, but I can’t imagine anyone trying to so anything useful
with it.
I seem to recall firing it up on my Amiga 500 in the early 90s. I did
not enjoy the experience much and soon went back to AmigaOS.
I have the forerunner of AmigaDOS (TRIPOS) running on the PDP-11 (well,
emulator for now, until I fix the hardware).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-09-10 19:25:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10 Sep 2020 17:39:05 GMT
Post by Bob Eager
I have the forerunner of AmigaDOS (TRIPOS) running on the PDP-11 (well,
emulator for now, until I fix the hardware).
Now that's something I haven't seen in a very long time.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Bob Eager
2020-09-10 20:23:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Bob Eager
I have the forerunner of AmigaDOS (TRIPOS) running on the PDP-11 (well,
emulator for now, until I fix the hardware).
Now that's something I haven't seen in a very long time.
It's been hard work. Incomplete and incompatible sources. First build the
compiler to build the tools to build the... and also tools to build disk
images and the like.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Douglas Miller
2020-09-08 13:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gareth evans
...
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
...
You couldn't be more wrong about Linux. It is more of an OS than Windows will ever be. Better go back and start reading again. And, while systemd might appear to a casual observer to be some MS monstrosity, if differs in pretty much all the important aspects:

* It works.
* It was designed.
* It was implemented by competent engineers
* It is customizable and extendable.
* It uses text files for configuration (human readable).
* The average sysadmin can actually understand how their system is configured.
gareth evans
2020-09-08 15:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Douglas Miller
Post by gareth evans
...
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
...
* It works.
* It was designed.
* It was implemented by competent engineers
* It is customizable and extendable.
* It uses text files for configuration (human readable).
* The average sysadmin can actually understand how their system is configured.
I couldn't ne more right about Linux having worked through RSX11-M and
been involved in several proprietary real time execs.

Who mantioned Windows? Not I.
gareth evans
2020-09-08 15:22:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gareth evans
Post by Douglas Miller
Post by gareth evans
...
My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
(multi-programming?)
...
You couldn't be more wrong about Linux. It is more of an OS than
Windows will ever be. Better go back and start reading again. And,
while systemd might appear to a casual observer to be some MS
* It works.
* It was designed.
* It was implemented by competent engineers
* It is customizable and extendable.
* It uses text files for configuration (human readable).
* The average sysadmin can actually understand how their system is configured.
I couldn't ne more right about Linux having worked through RSX11-M and
been involved in several proprietary real time execs.
Who mantioned Windows? Not I.
Typos - be more right; mentioned.

Reading again, all those bullet points apply equally well to MS-DOS!
Bob Eager
2020-09-08 15:40:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gareth evans
I couldn't ne more right about Linux having worked through RSX11-M and
been involved in several proprietary real time execs.
But RSX-11M isn't exactly complicated, is it?
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
gareth evans
2020-09-08 18:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by gareth evans
I couldn't ne more right about Linux having worked through RSX11-M and
been involved in several proprietary real time execs.
But RSX-11M isn't exactly complicated, is it?
Nothing is complicated when you know your way around it.
gareth evans
2020-09-08 18:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gareth evans
Post by Bob Eager
Post by gareth evans
I couldn't ne more right about Linux having worked through RSX11-M and
been involved in several proprietary real time execs.
But RSX-11M isn't exactly complicated, is it?
Nothing is complicated when you know your way around it.
PS. It was about 1983 when I read an article on the UNIX kernel
and realise its similarity to other OS kernels.

AIUI, LINUX installs rely on many other things which are not,
in themsleves, LINUX. Such as publicly sourced versions of GREP.
Bob Eager
2020-09-08 19:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
PS. It was about 1983 when I read an article on the UNIX kernel and
realise its similarity to other OS kernels.
UNIX in 1983 is light years away from Linux now.
AIUI, LINUX installs rely on many other things which are not, in
themsleves, LINUX. Such as publicly sourced versions of GREP.
Wow! You finally discovered that?
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
gareth evans
2020-09-08 20:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
PS. It was about 1983 when I read an article on the UNIX kernel and
realise its similarity to other OS kernels.
UNIX in 1983 is light years away from Linux now.
AIUI, LINUX installs rely on many other things which are not, in
themsleves, LINUX. Such as publicly sourced versions of GREP.
Wow! You finally discovered that?
I am uncertain as to your motivation behind your responses.
Loading...