I've just been asked a rather unusual question: when you build a BSD
kernel, the name of the configuration file is traditionally upper
case. Does anybody have insight as to why this should be?
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA70030
for pups-liszt; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:38:03 +1100 (EST)
>From Peter Chubb <peterc(a)aurema.com> Fri Feb 4 08:37:42 2000
Received: from smtp.sw.oz.au (firewall-user(a)smtp.sw.oz.au [203.31.96.1])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA70021
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:37:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from peterc@localhost)
by smtp.sw.oz.au (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA19456;
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:37:42 +1100 (EST)
From: Peter Chubb <peterc(a)aurema.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14490.822.632534.491258(a)swag.sw.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:37:42 +1100 (EST)
To: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
Cc: UNIX Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>,
FreeBSD Chat <chat(a)FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: Why upper case configuration file names in BSD?
In-Reply-To: <20000204084928.E26290(a)freebie.lemis.com>
References: <20000204084928.E26290(a)freebie.lemis.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.71 under 21.1 "Gimme a 6 and 5!" XEmacs Lucid (patch 2)
Comments: Hyperbole mail buttons accepted, v04.023.
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
Greg> I've just been asked a rather unusual question: when you build a BSD
Greg> kernel, the name of the configuration file is traditionally upper
Greg> case. Does anybody have insight as to why this should be?
The same reason that Makefile has an upper-case first letter -- so it
appears early in an ls listing, rather than in the middle of a big
long list.
Peter C
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA70141
for pups-liszt; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:47:14 +1100 (EST)
> Also, the white paper on BeOS claims that with all the new advances in
> hardware, modern OS's have too many layers, which they call 'silt', to
> allow them to use the hardware effectively. They argue that only
> starting from scratch allows full use of modern technology, including
> multimedia advances. How can FreeBSD keep up? We don't have kernel
> threading and SMP support is still in the works, and most BSD features
> are 'add-ons'. Should this be a concern for the future?
Unlike BeOS, FreeBSD is multiuser, and supports the concept of
credentials. I was asked to do some work porting some things,
including NFS, SMB, NetWare, and filesystem support to BeOS,
but it has an intrinsic lack of a security model, which can not
be easily overcome. It is not suitable as a server OS.
Terry Lambert
terry(a)lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA60331
for pups-liszt; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:17:36 +1100 (EST)
>From Arno Griffioen <arno(a)usn.nl> Thu Feb 3 00:17:11 2000
Received: from superluminal.usn.nl (root(a)superluminal.usn.nl [194.183.103.23])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA60327
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:17:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from arno@localhost)
by superluminal.usn.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id PAA13527
for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:17:12 +0100
From: Arno Griffioen <arno(a)usn.nl>
Message-Id: <200002021417.PAA13527(a)superluminal.usn.nl>
Subject: Qbus bootstrap board/ROMS?
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:17:11 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Any suggestions as to where I can get my hands on boot ROM's (or
data files. I have access to an EPROM programmer) for use with an 11/73?
A boot-ROM Qbus card would be nice too..
I'm trying to build up a new 11/73 (heh.. 'new' ;-) with an ex-uVAX BA213
chassis. (the original KA650 is in storage as a spare for my running machine)
I have most of the stuff I need (anybody have a spare 4 Mbyte QBUS card??) and
can re-use most of the QBUS cards from the uVAX (with an Emulex UC07
SCSI card! yeah!), but I don't have any boot ROM's or a ROM-card
for the 11/73.
The CPU card is a dual-wide version, so no on-board ROM's :-(
So far my searches have turned up little or nothing in this area, but I
hope that the combined brain-power here knows some addresses I can
try..
Thanx!
Bye, Arno,
--
PSINetworks Europe Fax: +31-23-5699841 | One disk to rule them all,
Siriusdreef 34 Tel: +31-23-5699840 | One disk to bind them,
2132WT Hoofddorp+--------------------------------+ One disk to hold the files
The Netherlands | * Musical Interlude * | And in the darkness grind 'em
----------------+--------------------------------+------------------------------
We say Retribution, We say Vengeance is bliss, We say Revolution,
With a Cast-Iron fist! (Megadeth, 'The Disintegrators')
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA60539
for pups-liszt; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:45:30 +1100 (EST)
>From Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> Thu Feb 3 00:45:17 2000
Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com (timaxp.trailing-edge.com [63.73.218.130])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA60535
for <PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU>; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:45:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU;
Wed, 2 Feb 2000 9:45:17 -0500
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 9:45:17 -0500
From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU
Message-Id: <000202094517.25600527(a)trailing-edge.com>
Subject: Re: Qbus bootstrap board/ROMS?
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
>Any suggestions as to where I can get my hands on boot ROM's (or
>data files. I have access to an EPROM programmer) for use with an 11/73?
>A boot-ROM Qbus card would be nice too..
[Later comment indicates a KDJ11-A...]
If you don't mind a toggle-in (err, um, ODT-in) bootstrap, you can
find a selection (some of them with disassemblies) at
http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/
just click on "Bootstraps". If you really insist on rolling your
own from scratch, you can burn these (modified if you want) into your
own EPROM's.
Chances are that if you find a Q-bus card that takes EPROM's it will
already have a boot ROM in it. For more on what's out there, read
Micronote #3 "Compatible Bootstraps for the LSI-11/73" and Micronote #15
"Q-Bus Hardware Bootstraps". If you don't have a printed set of
Micronotes handy, you can click on the above link at metalab and
then click on the Micronote index.
>I have most of the stuff I need (anybody have a spare 4 Mbyte QBUS card??) and
>can re-use most of the QBUS cards from the uVAX (with an Emulex UC07
>SCSI card! yeah!), but I don't have any boot ROM's or a ROM-card
>for the 11/73.
The UC07 has an onboard PDP-11 bootstrap you can enable. Why not just
turn it on?
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
In article by Mirian Crzig Lennox:
> Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
> >
> > The conditions look rather like the SCO ancient UNIX licences, but
> > it's *cheaper* ($75, which includes deliverables from Sun). Warren,
> > is this ammunition to lobby SCO to drop the prices of Ancient UNIX
> > licenses?
>
> After looking at the site, it seems as though Sun is trying to prevent
> licence holders from sharing code with other licence holders. If this
> is true, it would certainly make the Solaris licence less desirable to
> hobbyists than the ancient UNIX licence, unfortunately.
> --Mirian
Currently out of town. Still, it might be worth asking SCO for a discount!
Does the license cover all of Solaris, or just the kernel??
Cheers,
Warren
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
To: John Rosenberg <jcrosenberg(a)earthlink.net>
Cc: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>; Joerg B. Micheel <joerg(a)begemot.org>;
Steven M. Schultz <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>; <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; FreeBSD
Chat <chat(a)freebsd.org>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 07:24
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
> tough sell. Several guys i know say the majority of new unix installs
> are Linux with few BSD. They say the only BSD users that are growing
> are ISPs.
I think, that linux is somehow an entry in the unix world ;-)
After a while you notice, that *BSD is cleaner & more stable.
> Also, the white paper on BeOS claims that with all the new advances in
> hardware, modern OS's have too many layers, which they call 'silt', to
> allow them to use the hardware effectively.
Look what happened to linux & *BSD in the last months/years. They adapting
new technologies very fast ...
> They argue that only
> starting from scratch allows full use of modern technology, including
> multimedia advances. How can FreeBSD keep up? We don't have kernel
> threading and SMP support is still in the works, and most BSD features
> are 'add-ons'. Should this be a concern for the future?
Don't be "concerned", build in the stuff you're missing ;-)
cheers,
emanuel
I have written several device drivers (e.g., disk, DSP, DAT) for Solaris.
It is the slowest OS since Multix. Solaris is buggy, albeit pretty darned
stable. Interesting OS, but I'd stick by BSD (from a systems programmer
type).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathon McKitrick" <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
To: "Greg Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com>
Cc: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>; "Steven M. Schultz"
<sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>; <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; "FreeBSD Chat"
<chat(a)freebsd.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
>
> Message too convoluted to tell who actually wrote this....but i
> believe Greg wrote the second group of lines....
>
> >> That would make quite an interesting test. How much does
> >> ftp.cdrom.com gain by running FreeBSD instead of Solaris ?
> >
> >Good question. My guess is that Solaris 2 just couldn't handle that
> >many connections, but it compete reasonably well with fewer
> >connections (say 1000). I'll copy the FreeBSD chat people and see
> >what they think.
>
> Interestingly, i noticed recently that the response time on usa.net
> seemed much slower. It appears consistently so, either by ppp
> connection or by network/T1 line. A few months ago, netcraft showed
> that they were running FreeBSD. Guess what they are running
> now? Yup... SOlaris. I dropped them a line saying i noticed the speed
> difference.
>
> -=> jm <=-
>
> "I've done questionable things, also extraordinary things....
> Revel in your time!"
>
>
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28243
for pups-liszt; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 01:24:36 +1100 (EST)
>From "Jonathon McKitrick" <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Sat Jan 29 00:24:19 2000
Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28238
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 01:24:25 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97])
by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3)
id 12ECJw-000Fek-00; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:24:20 +0000
Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost)
by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA65406;
Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:24:19 GMT
(envelope-from jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:24:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
To: John Rosenberg <jcrosenberg(a)earthlink.net>
cc: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>, "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>,
"Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>, pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au,
FreeBSD Chat <chat(a)freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
In-Reply-To: <002001bf6996$34389ec0$b439bfa8@home>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001281418330.65317-100000(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
I'm a little concerned where all this leaves FreeBSD. If Solaris goes
open source, or something similar, and tries to compete with w2k, plus
linux is out there growing, and BeOS will be free soon.... FreeBSD might be a
tough sell. Several guys i know say the majority of new unix installs
are Linux with few BSD. They say the only BSD users that are growing
are ISPs. Does anyone have any stats on how fast we are
growing on the desktop, or in general?
Also, the white paper on BeOS claims that with all the new advances in
hardware, modern OS's have too many layers, which they call 'silt', to
allow them to use the hardware effectively. They argue that only
starting from scratch allows full use of modern technology, including
multimedia advances. How can FreeBSD keep up? We don't have kernel
threading and SMP support is still in the works, and most BSD features
are 'add-ons'. Should this be a concern for the future?
-=> jm <=-
"Do not taunt the Happy Fun Ball."
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28648
for pups-liszt; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 02:11:14 +1100 (EST)
>From "emanuel stiebler" <emu(a)ecubics.com> Sat Jan 29 01:14:48 2000
Received: from mail08.gte-hosting.net ([209.238.3.57])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA28644
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 02:11:03 +1100 (EST)
Received: from 209.238.157.134 (209.238.157.134)
by mail08.gte-hosting.net (RS ver 1.0.53) with SMTP id 02704289;
Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:10:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <004e01bf69a2$6c768bb0$5d01a8c0@p2350>
From: "emanuel stiebler" <emu(a)ecubics.com>
To: "Jonathon McKitrick" <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Cc: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001281418330.65317-100000(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:14:48 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
To: John Rosenberg <jcrosenberg(a)earthlink.net>
Cc: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>; Joerg B. Micheel <joerg(a)begemot.org>;
Steven M. Schultz <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>; <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; FreeBSD
Chat <chat(a)freebsd.org>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 07:24
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
>
> I'm a little concerned where all this leaves FreeBSD. If Solaris goes
> open source, or something similar, and tries to compete with w2k, plus
> linux is out there growing, and BeOS will be free soon.... FreeBSD might
be a
> tough sell. Several guys i know say the majority of new unix installs
> are Linux with few BSD. They say the only BSD users that are growing
> are ISPs. Does anyone have any stats on how fast we are
> growing on the desktop, or in general?
>
> Also, the white paper on BeOS claims that with all the new advances in
> hardware, modern OS's have too many layers, which they call 'silt', to
> allow them to use the hardware effectively. They argue that only
> starting from scratch allows full use of modern technology, including
> multimedia advances. How can FreeBSD keep up? We don't have kernel
> threading and SMP support is still in the works, and most BSD features
> are 'add-ons'. Should this be a concern for the future?
>
> -=> jm <=-
>
> "Do not taunt the Happy Fun Ball."
>
>
>
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29086
for pups-liszt; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:05:50 +1100 (EST)
>From Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com> Sat Jan 29 02:04:35 2000
Received: from lostwithiel.cley.com (lostwithiel.cley.com [212.240.242.98])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29081
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:05:40 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from tfb@localhost)
by lostwithiel.cley.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA28344;
Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:04:36 GMT
X-Mailer: 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid (via feedmail 8 I);
VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid
From: Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14481.48659.525262.366785(a)cley.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:04:35 +0000 (GMT)
To: Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com>
Cc: UNIX Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
In-Reply-To: <m3ln5b5u9p.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
References: <20000127110321.I53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
<m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
<20000127145736.Q53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
<m3ln5b5u9p.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
* Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
> This is in contrast to the Ancient UNIX licence, where it's my
> impression that SCO really doesn't care what you do with UNIX so long
> as you don't share code with unlicensed people.
But that's what you'd expect isn't it? Sun have some reasonable hope
of continuing to make money from Solaris, and they obviously would
like to retain some control, while SCO is unlikely to be regarding
6th-edition Unix as a big earner...
--tim
Sun's releasing the source code to Solaris. Take a look at
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/source/index.html for more
details.
The conditions look rather like the SCO ancient UNIX licences, but
it's *cheaper* ($75, which includes deliverables from Sun). Warren,
is this ammunition to lobby SCO to drop the prices of Ancient UNIX
licenses?
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19237
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:08:01 +1100 (EST)
>From Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com> Thu Jan 27 11:00:57 2000
Received: from shelbyville.oai.com (IDENT:root@shelbyville.alcita.com [204.57.59.144] (may be forged))
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19231
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:07:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from mirian@localhost)
by shelbyville.oai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03298;
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:00:59 -0500
From: Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com>
To: UNIX Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
References: <20000127110321.I53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
Original-Sender: lennox(a)alcita.com
Organization: Alcita Technologies, Inc.
Date: 26 Jan 2000 20:00:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: Greg Lehey's message of "Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:03:21 +1030"
Message-ID: <m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
>
> The conditions look rather like the SCO ancient UNIX licences, but
> it's *cheaper* ($75, which includes deliverables from Sun). Warren,
> is this ammunition to lobby SCO to drop the prices of Ancient UNIX
> licenses?
After looking at the site, it seems as though Sun is trying to prevent
licence holders from sharing code with other licence holders. If this
is true, it would certainly make the Solaris licence less desirable to
hobbyists than the ancient UNIX licence, unfortunately.
--Mirian
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19344
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:21:43 +1100 (EST)
>From "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org> Thu Jan 27 11:23:07 2000
Received: from begemot.org (negara.cs.waikato.ac.nz [130.217.248.112])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19340
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:21:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from joerg@localhost)
by begemot.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id OAA98715;
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:23:07 +1300 (NZDT)
(envelope-from joerg)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:23:07 +1300
From: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
To: Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com>
Cc: UNIX Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Message-ID: <20000127142307.A98693(a)begemot.org>
References: <20000127110321.I53307(a)freebie.lemis.com> <m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>; from Mirian Crzig Lennox on Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 08:00:57PM -0500
Organization: Begemot Computer Associates
Operating-System: ... powered by FreeBSD
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 08:00:57PM -0500, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
> Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
> >
> > The conditions look rather like the SCO ancient UNIX licences, but
> > it's *cheaper* ($75, which includes deliverables from Sun). Warren,
> > is this ammunition to lobby SCO to drop the prices of Ancient UNIX
> > licenses?
>
> After looking at the site, it seems as though Sun is trying to prevent
> licence holders from sharing code with other licence holders. If this
> is true, it would certainly make the Solaris licence less desirable to
> hobbyists than the ancient UNIX licence, unfortunately.
You're right, as long as patches do contain portions of Solaris.
Everything that does so has to funnel trough Sun first, this can
be done by putting it onto their secure server. The restriction
is that you can't share it freely, everything must be visible to
Sun. This is slightly different from the original educational
license, which allowed sharing with peers bound by the same
license conditions.
I think, popularity of Solaris might rather be restricted by its
performance. I have run Solaris x86 on my desktop for a while for
evaluation purposes. I don't think you could tune it easily to
become as fast as a regular Linux or *BSD system. Apart from
that, it certainly is the dinosaur solution of the decade.
Joerg
--
Joerg B. Micheel Email: <joerg(a)begemot.org>
Begemot Computer Associates Phone: +64 7 8562148
40 Masters Avenue, Hillcrest Fax: +64 7 8562148
Hamilton, New Zealand Pager: +64 868 38222
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19380
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:25:03 +1100 (EST)
>From "emanuel stiebler" <emu(a)ecubics.com> Thu Jan 27 11:28:28 2000
Received: from mail08.gte-hosting.net ([209.238.3.57])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA19369
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:24:55 +1100 (EST)
Received: from 209.238.157.134 (209.238.157.134)
by mail08.gte-hosting.net (RS ver 1.0.53) with SMTP id 01034407;
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:24:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <01ea01bf6865$d7844a20$5d01a8c0@p2350>
From: "emanuel stiebler" <emu(a)ecubics.com>
To: "Mirian Crzig Lennox" <lennox(a)alcita.com>,
"UNIX Heritage Society" <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
References: <20000127110321.I53307(a)freebie.lemis.com> <m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:28:28 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
---- Original Message -----
From: Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com>
To: UNIX Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 18:00
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
> Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
> >
> > The conditions look rather like the SCO ancient UNIX licences, but
> > it's *cheaper* ($75, which includes deliverables from Sun). Warren,
> > is this ammunition to lobby SCO to drop the prices of Ancient UNIX
> > licenses?
>
> After looking at the site, it seems as though Sun is trying to prevent
> licence holders from sharing code with other licence holders. If this
> is true, it would certainly make the Solaris licence less desirable to
> hobbyists than the ancient UNIX licence, unfortunately.
They don't "prevent" it, it seems that it is always steered by/at SUN.
>From the Webpage:
> If you want to make your source code modifications available to other
Solaris
> source code licensees, you can do so by passing the changes back to Sun,
and
> Sun will then post them to a secure website that you and other registered
users
> may access.
cheers,
emanuel
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19666
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:51:11 +1100 (EST)
>From "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> Thu Jan 27 11:42:54 2000
Received: from moe.2bsd.com (0(a)MOE.2BSD.COM [206.139.202.200])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19660
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:51:02 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from sms@localhost)
by moe.2bsd.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA00523
for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:42:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>
Message-Id: <200001270142.RAA00523(a)moe.2bsd.com>
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
> From: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
> I think, popularity of Solaris might rather be restricted by its
> performance. I have run Solaris x86 on my desktop for a while for
Agreed. I have run Solaris (only up thru 2.6 though) in its
"native" environment (Sun hardware) and even there the performance
is not anything one would write home about. The difference between
SunOS 4.1.x and Solaris 2.x is dramatic in favor on the older leaner
system.
I have not run Solarix x86 though but have heard from others (before
this) that its performance is quite a bit less than a BSD* system.
Steven Schultz
sms(a)moe.2bsd.com
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20265
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:28:36 +1100 (EST)
>From Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> Thu Jan 27 14:27:36 2000
Received: from freebie.lemis.com (root(a)freebie.lemis.com [192.109.197.137])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20254
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:27:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from grog@localhost)
by freebie.lemis.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) id OAA17254;
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:57:36 +1030 (CST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:57:36 +1030
From: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
To: Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com>
Cc: UNIX Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Message-ID: <20000127145736.Q53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
References: <20000127110321.I53307(a)freebie.lemis.com> <m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 6B 7B C3 8C 61 CD 54 AF 13 24 52 F8 6D A4 95 EF
Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia
Phone: +61-8-8388-8286
Fax: +61-8-8388-8725
Mobile: +61-41-739-7062
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Wednesday, 26 January 2000 at 20:00:57 -0500, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
> Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
>>
>> The conditions look rather like the SCO ancient UNIX licences, but
>> it's *cheaper* ($75, which includes deliverables from Sun). Warren,
>> is this ammunition to lobby SCO to drop the prices of Ancient UNIX
>> licenses?
>
> After looking at the site, it seems as though Sun is trying to
> prevent licence holders from sharing code with other licence
> holders.
I'm not 100% sure what they mean here. Nobody can stop you
distributing software you wrote as long as it doesn't contain
proprietary Sun code. You could do that with diffs.
> If this is true, it would certainly make the Solaris licence less
> desirable to hobbyists than the ancient UNIX licence, unfortunately.
I think it is anyway. For hobby purposes, I'd much rather use either
4.4BSD (for modern usage) or one of the old UNIXes.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20252
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:26:27 +1100 (EST)
>From Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> Thu Jan 27 14:26:02 2000
Received: from freebie.lemis.com (root(a)freebie.lemis.com [192.109.197.137])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20248
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:26:20 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from grog@localhost)
by freebie.lemis.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) id OAA15877;
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:56:02 +1030 (CST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:56:02 +1030
From: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
To: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>
Cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Message-ID: <20000127145602.P53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
References: <200001270142.RAA00523(a)moe.2bsd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <200001270142.RAA00523(a)moe.2bsd.com>
WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 6B 7B C3 8C 61 CD 54 AF 13 24 52 F8 6D A4 95 EF
Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia
Phone: +61-8-8388-8286
Fax: +61-8-8388-8725
Mobile: +61-41-739-7062
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Wednesday, 26 January 2000 at 17:42:54 -0800, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>> From: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
>> I think, popularity of Solaris might rather be restricted by its
>> performance. I have run Solaris x86 on my desktop for a while for
>
> Agreed. I have run Solaris (only up thru 2.6 though) in its
> "native" environment (Sun hardware) and even there the performance
> is not anything one would write home about. The difference between
> SunOS 4.1.x and Solaris 2.x is dramatic in favor on the older leaner
> system.
That's my experience too, but it may not be typical. For a large
system with a large number of processes (e.g. ftp server) the
comparison could be very different.
> I have not run Solarix x86 though but have heard from others (before
> this) that its performance is quite a bit less than a BSD* system.
Ditto. I have a CD somewhere that I just couldn't be bothered
installing.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20540
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:03:31 +1100 (EST)
>From "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org> Thu Jan 27 15:04:06 2000
Received: from begemot.org (negara.cs.waikato.ac.nz [130.217.248.112])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20536
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:03:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from joerg@localhost)
by begemot.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id SAA00589;
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:04:07 +1300 (NZDT)
(envelope-from joerg)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:04:06 +1300
From: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
To: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
Cc: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>, pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Message-ID: <20000127180406.A574(a)begemot.org>
References: <200001270142.RAA00523(a)moe.2bsd.com> <20000127145602.P53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20000127145602.P53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:56:02PM +1030
Organization: Begemot Computer Associates
Operating-System: ... powered by FreeBSD
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:56:02PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 January 2000 at 17:42:54 -0800, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> >> From: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
> >> I think, popularity of Solaris might rather be restricted by its
> >> performance. I have run Solaris x86 on my desktop for a while for
> >
> > Agreed. I have run Solaris (only up thru 2.6 though) in its
> > "native" environment (Sun hardware) and even there the performance
> > is not anything one would write home about. The difference between
> > SunOS 4.1.x and Solaris 2.x is dramatic in favor on the older leaner
> > system.
>
> That's my experience too, but it may not be typical. For a large
> system with a large number of processes (e.g. ftp server) the
> comparison could be very different.
That would make quite an interesting test. How much does ftp.cdrom.com
gain by running FreeBSD instead of Solaris ?
Joerg
--
Joerg B. Micheel Email: <joerg(a)begemot.org>
Begemot Computer Associates Phone: +64 7 8562148
40 Masters Avenue, Hillcrest Fax: +64 7 8562148
Hamilton, New Zealand Pager: +64 868 38222
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20597
for pups-liszt; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:09:02 +1100 (EST)
>From Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> Thu Jan 27 15:08:20 2000
Received: from freebie.lemis.com (root(a)freebie.lemis.com [192.109.197.137])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20592
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:08:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from grog@localhost)
by freebie.lemis.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) id PAA44566;
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:38:21 +1030 (CST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:38:20 +1030
From: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
To: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
Cc: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>, pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au,
FreeBSD Chat <chat(a)FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Message-ID: <20000127153820.T53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
References: <200001270142.RAA00523(a)moe.2bsd.com> <20000127145602.P53307(a)freebie.lemis.com> <20000127180406.A574(a)begemot.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <20000127180406.A574(a)begemot.org>
WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 6B 7B C3 8C 61 CD 54 AF 13 24 52 F8 6D A4 95 EF
Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia
Phone: +61-8-8388-8286
Fax: +61-8-8388-8725
Mobile: +61-41-739-7062
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Thursday, 27 January 2000 at 18:04:06 +1300, Joerg Micheel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:56:02PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2000 at 17:42:54 -0800, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>>>> From: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
>>>> I think, popularity of Solaris might rather be restricted by its
>>>> performance. I have run Solaris x86 on my desktop for a while for
>>>
>>> Agreed. I have run Solaris (only up thru 2.6 though) in its
>>> "native" environment (Sun hardware) and even there the performance
>>> is not anything one would write home about. The difference between
>>> SunOS 4.1.x and Solaris 2.x is dramatic in favor on the older leaner
>>> system.
>>
>> That's my experience too, but it may not be typical. For a large
>> system with a large number of processes (e.g. ftp server) the
>> comparison could be very different.
>
> That would make quite an interesting test. How much does
> ftp.cdrom.com gain by running FreeBSD instead of Solaris ?
Good question. My guess is that Solaris 2 just couldn't handle that
many connections, but it compete reasonably well with fewer
connections (say 1000). I'll copy the FreeBSD chat people and see
what they think.
For -chat: Sun have announced their intention to release the source
code of Solaris [2.]8. We're discussing what this means. See
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/source/ for more details.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22317
for pups-liszt; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:02:40 +1100 (EST)
>From Jonathon McKitrick <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Thu Jan 27 23:02:23 2000
Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA22313
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:02:31 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97])
by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3)
id 12DoZ6-000JNg-00; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:02:24 +0000
Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost)
by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA48336;
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:02:23 GMT
(envelope-from jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:02:23 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
To: Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
cc: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>,
"Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>, pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au,
FreeBSD Chat <chat(a)freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
In-Reply-To: <20000127153820.T53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001271255430.48240-100000(a)dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Message too convoluted to tell who actually wrote this....but i
believe Greg wrote the second group of lines....
>> That would make quite an interesting test. How much does
>> ftp.cdrom.com gain by running FreeBSD instead of Solaris ?
>
>Good question. My guess is that Solaris 2 just couldn't handle that
>many connections, but it compete reasonably well with fewer
>connections (say 1000). I'll copy the FreeBSD chat people and see
>what they think.
Interestingly, i noticed recently that the response time on usa.net
seemed much slower. It appears consistently so, either by ppp
connection or by network/T1 line. A few months ago, netcraft showed
that they were running FreeBSD. Guess what they are running
now? Yup... SOlaris. I dropped them a line saying i noticed the speed
difference.
-=> jm <=-
"I've done questionable things, also extraordinary things....
Revel in your time!"
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22669
for pups-liszt; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:26:55 +1100 (EST)
>From Thor Lancelot Simon <tls(a)rek.tjls.com> Fri Jan 28 00:26:41 2000
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA22665
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:26:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.0.228])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 62093155AD; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:26:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from tls@localhost) by panix3.panix.com (8.8.8/8.7.1/PanixN1.0) id JAA12242; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:26:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:26:41 -0500
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls(a)rek.tjls.com>
To: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
Cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Message-ID: <20000127092641.A16017(a)rek.tjls.com>
Reply-To: tls(a)rek.tjls.com
References: <200001270142.RAA00523(a)moe.2bsd.com> <20000127145602.P53307(a)freebie.lemis.com> <20000127180406.A574(a)begemot.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <20000127180406.A574(a)begemot.org>; from joerg(a)begemot.org on Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:04:06PM +1300
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:04:06PM +1300, Joerg B. Micheel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:56:02PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 January 2000 at 17:42:54 -0800, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> > >> From: "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)begemot.org>
> > >> I think, popularity of Solaris might rather be restricted by its
> > >> performance. I have run Solaris x86 on my desktop for a while for
> > >
> > > Agreed. I have run Solaris (only up thru 2.6 though) in its
> > > "native" environment (Sun hardware) and even there the performance
> > > is not anything one would write home about. The difference between
> > > SunOS 4.1.x and Solaris 2.x is dramatic in favor on the older leaner
> > > system.
> >
> > That's my experience too, but it may not be typical. For a large
> > system with a large number of processes (e.g. ftp server) the
> > comparison could be very different.
>
> That would make quite an interesting test. How much does ftp.cdrom.com
> gain by running FreeBSD instead of Solaris ?
How can anyone know that it gains anything at all? To begin with, it's
never *run* Solaris, so there's no way to draw any kind of meaningful
comparison.
The dirty little secret of Linux and *BSD is that their ascendance has
been tightly coupled to Sun's utter inability to build fast, cheap
uniprocessor machines. Any way you slice it, a single-processor top-of-
the-line x86 box is just going to be a *lot* faster and cheaper than
Sun's entry-level multiprocessor. The great gamble they made was to
turn their kernel into a highly-multithreaded thing of beauty -- but
that *has* to cost some (even some small) amount of uniprocessor
performance, and since they can't build cheap multiprocesors that are
as fast as the high end of the commodity uniprocessor x86 boxes,
for a lot of applications they lose.
Even on a 2- or 4- processor machine, Solaris is demonstrably far
faster than *BSD or Linux for many workloads. But you can buy a
single-processor x86 that's cheaper than Sun's 2- or 4- processor
box now, which is why people run Linux or FreeBSD or NetBSD. There
is still a point at which the only way to get enough performance is
to add more processors, and at that point Solaris still wins, and
will for the forseeable (by me, at least) future.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls(a)rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23125
for pups-liszt; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:53:03 +1100 (EST)
>From "emanuel stiebler" <emu(a)ecubics.com> Fri Jan 28 01:49:19 2000
Received: from mail08.gte-hosting.net ([209.238.3.57])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA23120
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:52:55 +1100 (EST)
Received: from 209.238.157.134 (209.238.157.134)
by mail08.gte-hosting.net (RS ver 1.0.53) with SMTP id 02004956
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:45:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <002101bf68de$142f8430$5d01a8c0@p2350>
From: "emanuel stiebler" <emu(a)ecubics.com>
To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
References: <200001270142.RAA00523(a)moe.2bsd.com> <20000127145602.P53307(a)freebie.lemis.com> <20000127180406.A574(a)begemot.org> <20000127092641.A16017(a)rek.tjls.com>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:49:19 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
----- Original Message -----
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls(a)rek.tjls.com>
To: Joerg B. Micheel <joerg(a)begemot.org>
Cc: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 07:26
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
> The dirty little secret of Linux and *BSD is that their ascendance has
> been tightly coupled to Sun's utter inability to build fast, cheap
> uniprocessor machines. Any way you slice it, a single-processor top-of-
> the-line x86 box is just going to be a *lot* faster and cheaper than
> Sun's entry-level multiprocessor. The great gamble they made was to
> turn their kernel into a highly-multithreaded thing of beauty -- but
> that *has* to cost some (even some small) amount of uniprocessor
> performance, and since they can't build cheap multiprocesors that are
> as fast as the high end of the commodity uniprocessor x86 boxes,
> for a lot of applications they lose.
>
> Even on a 2- or 4- processor machine, Solaris is demonstrably far
> faster than *BSD or Linux for many workloads. But you can buy a
> single-processor x86 that's cheaper than Sun's 2- or 4- processor
> box now, which is why people run Linux or FreeBSD or NetBSD. There
> is still a point at which the only way to get enough performance is
> to add more processors, and at that point Solaris still wins, and
> will for the forseeable (by me, at least) future.
Another thing to mention is also, that it is very easy to build your own
kernel, exctly for your needs in Linux or *BSD. (removing all
emulations/compatibility modes, ...) so you get a nice small/fast kernel
excactly for your type of machine & workload.
Don't think it's so easy on a sun.
cheers,
emanuel
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23440
for pups-liszt; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:02:33 +1100 (EST)
>From Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com> Fri Jan 28 02:55:30 2000
Received: from shelbyville.oai.com (IDENT:root@shelbyville.alcita.com [204.57.59.144] (may be forged))
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA23436
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:02:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from mirian@localhost)
by shelbyville.oai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04656;
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:55:30 -0500
From: Mirian Crzig Lennox <lennox(a)alcita.com>
To: UNIX Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Sun release source code for Solaris 8
References: <20000127110321.I53307(a)freebie.lemis.com> <m3aels1g6u.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com> <20000127145736.Q53307(a)freebie.lemis.com>
Original-Sender: lennox(a)alcita.com
Organization: Alcita Technologies, Inc.
Date: 27 Jan 2000 11:55:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: Greg Lehey's message of "Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:57:36 +1030"
Message-ID: <m3ln5b5u9p.fsf(a)shelbyville.oai.com>
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Greg Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
> > After looking at the site, it seems as though Sun is trying to
> > prevent licence holders from sharing code with other licence
> > holders.
>
> I'm not 100% sure what they mean here. Nobody can stop you
> distributing software you wrote as long as it doesn't contain
> proprietary Sun code. You could do that with diffs.
Can I really? Any diffs are necessarily going to contain some of the
original proprietary code. It depends on how aggressive Sun's lawyers
are going to be about preventing any co-operative development of
Solaris which is not mediated by Sun. From their website, it seems
that Sun wants to be firmly in control of that process.
This is in contrast to the Ancient UNIX licence, where it's my
impression that SCO really doesn't care what you do with UNIX so long
as you don't share code with unlicensed people.
> > If this is true, it would certainly make the Solaris licence less
> > desirable to hobbyists than the ancient UNIX licence, unfortunately.
>
> I think it is anyway. For hobby purposes, I'd much rather use either
> 4.4BSD (for modern usage) or one of the old UNIXes.
For practical purposes I agree, although I'm intrigued enough by the
extremely modular design of Solaris to think it might be fun to spend
some time playing with.
--
Mirian Crzig Lennox Systems Anarchist
Invest in America -- buy a Congressman!
Hi all, I've received another e-mail from Alexey about some Y2K software
for Venix and 2BSD. He's also given me a copy of a Russian UNIX called
Demos. This is based on something like V7M, but Alexey says that its
better than Venix. I've only got a tar file with bins & src, no disk
images. Anyone with a pro350 or 380 interested in looking at this?
Anyway, here's his latest e-mail and Date.c. Warren
From: Alexey Chupahin <achupahi(a)uic.rsu.ru>
Hello Warren, I just receive letter from John Rosenberg. He
recommended me to resend date2 program. May be, my previous letter
didn't go to you, but to John? I just try to resend you date2.
The Date2 is good for first. Now I'm hacking RT-11 DIR (analogue
ls in Unix :-), unlike to Unix one, DIR is very bad for Y2k.)
program with system library SYSLIB.OBJ. When I finish it, I just
try to test and fix BSD system. Unfortunatly, I haven't any documents
described BSD library with utilites to see what subroutines/utilites
to be needed to fix. May be, I can find it on the Web? But I have
documentation for Inmos (Russian version7). I use it to see in
first time. Unlike to poor (but very good!) standard Version 7,
Russian one has 2 screen editors, including vi, and one Russian
multiscreen edit RED, editor like small MSWord for Pro, screen
menu-making/control programs and library, graphic, bisness programs
and libraries for Pro. Unfortunatly, I have only documentation,
no any distributive...
When I finish BSD ( I hope to will finish it soon ) I'll just go
to Unix7 and 6. I've got it from your site yet, Version 7 is booted
Ok... May be, vi from BSD still works in Unix7?
> Also, I am still not sure what to do about Demos. It's a pity that
> you don't have a bootable disk image for it.
Ok... Demos was very good-organized Unix for Pro-350/380... more
good then Inmos, how I'm hear...
Unfortunatly, I'm not rich student, but I wish to small used Alpha
for a long time. I find ready to use Multia in Moscow for 450$.
In Russia we have a nearly 18$ per month (Crysis :-( ) I have
360$ yet. May be, anybody can help me for 90$... ;-)
regards,
Alex
Yeah, that's the machine/software. Terrible software, if an honest
attempt no doubt. Belongs in the Computer Museum. (It's such a pain
to use that I would not bother, that is.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com>
To: <rdkeys(a)unity.ncsu.edu>
Cc: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Anyone know what a Masscomp 5400 (54S-01) is?
> * rdkeys wrote:
> > On a surplus junket, today, I ran across a 2 dollar chassis that was
> > listed as a Masscomp 5400 (54S-01) computer. It looked rather like
> > a DECish based thing with dual height cards, like some sort of
laboratory
> > digital aquisition machine. On the long-shot that it is some sort of
> > PDP-11ish thing, anyone have any recollection or pointers to any info
> > on that kind of a Masscomp machine?
>
> Masscomps were 68k based machines, they had a whole bunch of stuff for
> real-time and data-acquistion type stuff. They ran something called
> RTU -- real-time Unix -- which was a weirdo sysv / BSD hybrid, not fun
> to use. If the 5400 is the machine I remember it's a 68020 machine
> but it may have a lot of cards for other stuff in. If it *is* the
> machine we had it was deeply unreliable. Masscomp got bought by
> someone else later on but I forget who, so they sometimes get badged
> as some other make.
>
> I would run away, fast.
>
> --tim
>
>
On Friday, 21 January 2000 at 16:44:34 +0000, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * rdkeys wrote:
>> On a surplus junket, today, I ran across a 2 dollar chassis that was
>> listed as a Masscomp 5400 (54S-01) computer. It looked rather like
>> a DECish based thing with dual height cards, like some sort of laboratory
>> digital aquisition machine. On the long-shot that it is some sort of
>> PDP-11ish thing, anyone have any recollection or pointers to any info
>> on that kind of a Masscomp machine?
>
> Masscomps were 68k based machines, they had a whole bunch of stuff for
> real-time and data-acquistion type stuff. They ran something called
> RTU -- real-time Unix -- which was a weirdo sysv / BSD hybrid, not fun
> to use. If the 5400 is the machine I remember it's a 68020 machine
> but it may have a lot of cards for other stuff in. If it *is* the
> machine we had it was deeply unreliable. Masscomp got bought by
> someone else later on but I forget who, so they sometimes get badged
> as some other make.
>
> I would run away, fast.
On the other hand, IIRC this was the machine which was the basis for
the Egan/Teixeira (sp?) book on writing UNIX drivers. It might be
amusing for that reason alone. If it's functional and you have the
space, you probably won't regret the $2 you spend for it.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
On a surplus junket, today, I ran across a 2 dollar chassis that was
listed as a Masscomp 5400 (54S-01) computer. It looked rather like
a DECish based thing with dual height cards, like some sort of laboratory
digital aquisition machine. On the long-shot that it is some sort of
PDP-11ish thing, anyone have any recollection or pointers to any info
on that kind of a Masscomp machine?
Thanks
Bob
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA42516
for pups-liszt; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:45:56 +1100 (EST)
>From Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com> Sat Jan 22 02:44:34 2000
Received: from lostwithiel.cley.com (lostwithiel.cley.com [212.240.242.98])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA42512
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:45:33 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from tfb@localhost)
by lostwithiel.cley.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA04637;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:44:35 GMT
X-Mailer: 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid (via feedmail 8 I);
VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid
From: Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14472.36082.530024.331321(a)cley.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:44:34 +0000 (GMT)
To: rdkeys(a)unity.ncsu.edu
Cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: Re: Anyone know what a Masscomp 5400 (54S-01) is?
In-Reply-To: <200001211607.LAA12512(a)uni02du.unity.ncsu.edu>
References: <200001211607.LAA12512(a)uni02du.unity.ncsu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
* rdkeys wrote:
> On a surplus junket, today, I ran across a 2 dollar chassis that was
> listed as a Masscomp 5400 (54S-01) computer. It looked rather like
> a DECish based thing with dual height cards, like some sort of laboratory
> digital aquisition machine. On the long-shot that it is some sort of
> PDP-11ish thing, anyone have any recollection or pointers to any info
> on that kind of a Masscomp machine?
Masscomps were 68k based machines, they had a whole bunch of stuff for
real-time and data-acquistion type stuff. They ran something called
RTU -- real-time Unix -- which was a weirdo sysv / BSD hybrid, not fun
to use. If the 5400 is the machine I remember it's a 68020 machine
but it may have a lot of cards for other stuff in. If it *is* the
machine we had it was deeply unreliable. Masscomp got bought by
someone else later on but I forget who, so they sometimes get badged
as some other make.
I would run away, fast.
--tim
