HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danubius@halcyon.com (Joseph R. Pannon)
Subject: Re: Will Linux/386BSD/XFree86 run on my Gateway 2000 4DX2-66V?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:11:10 GMT

In article <fluet.725018399@ee.ualberta.ca> fluet@ee.ualberta.ca (Kevin Blaine Fluet) writes:

>By the way, Linux runs very well on my Gateway 4DX2-66V.  I am typing this
>note in an xterm window under SLS linux .98p5 and Xfree1.1.  

What I'd like to find out if anybody runs it also well on a bit older
Gateway 2000 486/33 which came with the Diamond SpeedStar Plus card and
the dual horizontal frequency (31.5 & 48 KHz) CrystalScan 1024 NI
monitor?  (Micronics Gemini motherboard).  

The documentation states somewhere a problem with newer SpeedStar cards
(like Stealth and 24, I guess), but the Plus card is not one of them.
Yet, I haven't heard anybody actually confirming that this video combo is
OK for Xfree.

Joe Pannon
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: bogstad@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Subject: Re: Employment generated by GNU versus Bill Gates
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:40:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.082333.16854@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>Some time back, in the midst of a discussion regarding the evil Bill Gates,
>the GNU project, and what each had done in the way of providing jobs,
>Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
>> 
>> All told, I would not be surprised if more than a thousand people make a
>> living, provide for their families, and support the economy thanks to free
>> software ...

>I just wanted to note that this is exactly the kind of totally worthless
>and nonsensical uninformed speculation you get when you read netnews.
>Reading netnews, you get the good with the bad... the real information
>with the total unmitigated horseshit.
>
>Let me tell you in all seriousness that there is just no f***ing way that
>there are anywhere near 1000 people making a living from free software.

	I'm a system administrator for a computer science department which
uses Unix workstations.  I estimate that I spend at least 10% of my time
installing, maintaining, or instructing others in the use of free software.
There are lots of other departments at this university with UNIX
workstations and they also use free software to a greater or lesser extent.
Even commercial sites use free software.  There are alot of people out there
doing the same thing that I am.  If it wasn't for free software my employer
would have to spend much more money on commercial software and as a result
would have to reduce my compensation considerably.  (And they feel that they
would get less for their money as well.)  Part of my living is made from
supporting free software.  This may not be the interpretation that you gave
to Sean's original comment, but it is a valid one.  I think if you add up
all those percentages up; you would easily end up with more then 1000
full-time equivalents.

				Bill Bogstad
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: holder@telesoft.com (Robert L. Holder @ignite)
Subject: Re: A few answers to Dell Unix FAQ [was Re: Dell support?]
Organization: Alsys Group, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:49:32 GMT

In <1992Dec29.005052.19358@raid.dell.com> sauer@chs.dell.com (Charlie Sauer) writes:


>Q.  Is Dell changing the source base for Dell Unix to V.4.2 or Solaris?

>Dell does not plan to change Dell Unix to a new source base, neither 4.2
>nor Solaris.  

>Q.  Is Dell going to sell Solaris?  When?  Will there be special Solaris
>    offerings for Dell Unix customers?

>Dell plans to offer Solaris, as announced more than a year ago.  However, 
>the current form of Solaris is not ready for general availability to end
>users.  It is unknown now whether Dell will provide special Solaris offerings
>for Dell Unix customers.  More specifics should be available by Spring '93.

>Q.  Rumors are that Dell is dropping the Dell UNIX product in favor of a 
>    third party Unix like SCO, or Solaris.  Is this true?  

>Dell plans to continue offering Dell Unix.  In addition, Dell has offered SCO 
>Unix for quite some time and plans to offer Solaris.

Does the above mean that the existing Dell 4.0.X based SVR4 Unix
would make an ideal hosting platform to build products for the
newer SVR4.2 (Destiny) and Solaris operating systems 
on the Intel 386 platform?
For example, if one desired to produce a word processor for
commercial release on SVR4 Intel Unix, the product could be
compiled and linked on the existing Dell product and the 
binaries transferred to the other OS's. This would make a
very convenient "least common denominator" building platform.
My guess is the other direction would not work, building 
on the newer 4.2/386 OS's and riding the ABI back to 4.0.X.
Comments...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: rastek@world.std.com (keith losset)
Subject: Need a Termcap/Terminfo Entry for SCO Console
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:50:22 GMT

My organization runs an ISC 3.0 file server.  In an effort to improve on
the ubiquitous vt100 terminal emulation for our database applications, we
purchased a number of "tiny-term" emulators which emulate, among other
things, the SCO Color Console (Recital supports this interface directly).
This has worked out so well, I would like to try using this for more
traditional applications.  If anyone has a "spare" copy of a good termcap
and/or terminfo database entry for SCO, please E-MAIL to jkl@rastek.com.
(I assume there are no license issues for a simple termcap???).  BTW, I
know that "ansi" should be very close, but it doesn't quite do the job.

Thanks...

-- 
Keith Losset, Rastek Corporation, 205-882-0882    jkl@hunan.rastek.com
From: muts@estec.esa.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Subject: Question about ISA/IDE disk throughput (pc newbie)
Organization: European Space Agency
Distribution: comp
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:35:07 GMT

Sorry if you see this message twice. I posted before but the article
didn't seem to show up.

In a magazine I read for a couple of 386sx PC's that disk access (IDE)
is only at 200 kbyte/s. This seems terribly slow to me, especially
for an OS like unix. Is this really true? Do 486dx's have much better
IO speeds? How can UNIX live with such a low bandwidth. Are local
busses much faster (how much)?

Thanks for any information,
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers.         |================================================ 
muts@pmcs.estec.esa.nl  |        Quod licet bovi, non licet Jovi
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
From: cliffp@steamboat.informix.com (Clifford Porter)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Symphony Chipset Motherboards with Unix
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:51:14 GMT
Reply-To: cliffp@steamboat.informix.com
Organization: Informix Software

In article 3427@zooid.guild.org, vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason) writes:
>
>Hi all,
>
>For the last while, I had an old Intel chipset 486DX-25 motherboard, with no
>cache. It gave me a number of problems, so recently I acquired a new Symphony
>chipset based motherboard. I cannot get this thing to run my Unix, Consensys
>V4.2. It just locks up while it is booting up. It runs DOS fine.
>
>What I get is the "Booting the UNIX system" message, then it checks everything
>out, then I get a PANIC and it writes 4000 pages of core. I've changed all the
>parameters, I think, in most combinations. Does anyone have any "hints" or
>even solutions? I've changed about everything in the BIOS. 
>
>My system is SCSI Adaptec 1542B based, with 16MB of RAM. (4 X 4 MB simms, the
>SIMMs are 9 chip SIMMs and they are tested OK). The only things in the system
>are an ATI VGA Wonder, the Adaptec board, and a generic AT I/O with IDE (BIOS
>HD disabled). 
>
>The irritating thing is that with the old Intel chipset motherboard, I could
>boot the UNIX fine. It just wouldn't keep working (PANICs every once in a
>while).
>
>I went for a Symphony chipset because I was told it's better than the other
>chipsets. What is a good chipset, while I'm here? I've heard bad things about
>Opti and UMC. A discussion of what is a good, cheap motherboard would be
>useful to a lot of people.  
>
>
>-- 
>vid@zooid.guild.org             -->> ZOOiD Public Access Usenet 416 322-7876


I have a Symphony chipset with AMI bios, 8 megs, 64k cache, IDE, 1542, and 
Tecmar Tape running Consensys 4.1.3, and os/2 superbly.
From: pcarmack@gimp.kpc.com (Phil Carmack)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: ET4000/W32 and VESA VL-Bus
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:19:35 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer

In article <BzKqwn.5vA@wimsey.bc.ca>, bhenning@wimsey.bc.ca (Bill Henning) writes:
|> The problem with DRAM based accelerators, even if they get 160Mb/sec
|> bandwidth out of the DRAM's is that the bandwidth is not random-access,
|> but is rather a result of page mode (or static column, or nibble mode)
|> DRAM cycles, therefore if you are using say 110Mb of bandwidth to
|> feed a 1280x1024x8 display, the theoretically 50Mb/sec bandwitdh
|> left over will actually be more like 10-20Mb/sec, as most graphics
|> operations will not be able to take full advantage of page mode,
|> even if the bus interface to the local bus supports it.
|> 
|> Bill

This is not entirely true.  It is true that the actual bandwidth of the
graphics rendering plus the pixel scan out will be less than the total 
max (because of set up and tear down overhead of paged mode accesses), 
but depending on how much buffering there is during scan out, both
should be accessing the DRAMs in bursts.  Also, during vertical (and
horizontal for that matter) retrace, the renderer has the complete attention
of the DRAM.

Of course, as always there are many graphics operations that will break
page mode accesses because they are not sequential (e.g. drawing vertical
bars on the screen).  But copy performance is one of the most important
features for running windows since moving a window is just a copy of a
rectangular region.

I should say that I know absolutely nothing about Tsengs chips or how they
work.  I was just speaking theoretically, and this whole bandwidth issue
depends entirely on how much buffering the chips do.  For example, if the
chips buffered an entire scan line of data during scan out, total bandwidth
utilized would approach the max because the overhead of setting up for page
mode accesses would be amortized of a large chunk of data.


Cheers,

Phil

-- 
Philip Carmack				| pcarmack@kpc.com	(408)987-3336
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.		|
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:941 comp.unix.sysv386:17653 comp.unix.sys5.r4:1085
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: A few answers to Dell Unix FAQ [was Re: Dell support?]
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:35:26 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Dec30.152402.13189@sbcs.sunysb.edu> shane@cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough) writes:
| Charlie Sauer (sauer@chs.dell.com) wrote:
| 
| : Q.  Is Dell changing the source base for Dell Unix to V.4.2 or Solaris?
| : 
| : Dell does not plan to change Dell Unix to a new source base, neither 4.2
| : nor Solaris.  
| 
| Gee, good thing I just plunked down $1300 for Dell UNIX... wouldn't
| want to get stuck with a dead-end product, now would I?

  Did you think that you were never going to change again? You got the
best product available today for what you want to do, and it is still
being supported and enhanced.

  Until we find out what Novell is going to do with UNIX I wouldn't make
any plans. If they raise the price you better learn to say "NT", and if
they go after mass market you'll see a migration to V.4.x very quickly.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
"I haven't had time to read the manual, I've been too
   busy fighting with the install" -Nevius
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:909 comp.unix.bsd:10668 comp.os.linux:21860
From: mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ET4000/W32 and VESA VL-Bus
Date: 28 Dec 1992 02:27:58 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: starburst.umd.edu

>Yes, you are right, partially. Of course the serious graphics boards
>use all VRAM, which are dual ported RAMs specifically for graphics
>boards. They have a internal shift register for the screen refresh
>data and a random access port for the graphics engine. And of course
>those allow you to use the 100MB/sec (which was again just a sample
>number which seems to be realistic for the WD90C31) exclusively for
>the drawing operations. But the point was that somebody asked about
>the ET4000/W32, which is a DRAM based (and not VRAM based) solution.
>In my eyes, nothing justifies the usage of DRAMs for a graphics board if
>you want to use it for a GUI. The price difference is rather minor
>in those days.

>Also there are quite a number of S3 chips, which use EITHER VRAM or
>DRAM:

>	86C911		VRAM
>	86C924		VRAM
>	86C801		DRAM
>	86C805		DRAM
>	86C928		VRAM


>What I am saying is that for 1028x768 in 70Hz and 1280x1024 you should
>generally forget the DRAM based solutions. Even if they look good at
>benchmarks; most of these benchmarks used a 640x480 resolution,
>where the screen refresh only takes 25MB/sec, and the available
>bandwidth for graphics operations is quite the same as for VRAM based
>solutions. But if you use the DRAM based boards at 1024x768, 70Hz,
>you'll see the difference.

>- Thomas

January '93 BYTE magazine did a review of higher performance SVGA
graphics accelerator boards (p.202-206).  The Orchid Fahrenheit VA
which uses the 86C801 board did quite respectably in their tests
(which were performaned on all the boards at 1024x768 resolution, 72Hz).
The Actix Systems GraphicsEngine 32 also used the S3 based 86C801 and
had even higher scores.  Yet according to your chart they can
only use DRAM.  Again the tests in BYTE were ay 72Hz.  Comment?


--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: mike@cbl.umd.edu      [work]
Computer & Network Systems Head       +           mike@kavishar.umd.edu [home]
Univ MD: CEES / CBL (Solomons Island) + BITNET:   MIKE@UMUC  [fwd to mike@cbl]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: thomas@aeon.in-berlin.de (Thomas Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Booting DOS or Unix optionally from the same HD?
Organization: Cities in Dust
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:19:19 GMT

In <1992Dec26.231830.2301@weyrich.UUCP> orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:

>In article <BzFnwF.6ox@leo.irv.icl.com> tim@leo.irv.icl.com (Tim Holdener) writes:

>>After installing Unix, the system always booted Unix from the
>>hard disk.  The only way I could boot DOS was to place a DOS boot
>>diskette in the floppy drive.  Does anyone know a method of
>>configuring such a system to allow the option of booting either
>>Unix or DOS from the same hard disk?  I'm sure an appropriate
>>BIOS would work, but can I buy such a PROM commercially?

>There are a variety of "boot-managers" available, some even public
>domain. The only one that I have used is the one that comes bundled

Some of them is "os-bs" and you can get it via ftp from
ftp.prz.tu-berlin.de in /pub/pc/os-bs, it's called os-bs135.exe
(self-extracting LHA-archiv running under DOS). It has a customizable
boot menu and time out. It works with different Unix systems, DOS
and OS/2.

cheers,
Thomas

-- 
Thomas Wolfram, thomas@aeon.in-berlin.de
EANTC, TU Berlin, wolf@prz.tu-berlin.de, +49 030 31421294
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:876 comp.unix.sysv386:17592
From: tim@leo.irv.icl.com (Tim Holdener)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Booting DOS or Unix optionally from the same HD?
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:21:51 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: usa
Organization: ICL, Advanced Development Group, Irvine CA

I recently had the opportunity to configure a 486 system which my
company (ICL) sells with SVR4 installed.  While configuring the
software, the installation procedure asked if I wanted to include
a DOS partition on the hard disk.  I accepted and configured
a Unix partition and a DOS partition.  The system wouldn't
allow me to configure the main DOS partition anywhere but from
the first sector on the disk.

After installing Unix, the system always booted Unix from the
hard disk.  The only way I could boot DOS was to place a DOS boot
diskette in the floppy drive.  Does anyone know a method of
configuring such a system to allow the option of booting either
Unix or DOS from the same hard disk?  I'm sure an appropriate
BIOS would work, but can I buy such a PROM commercially?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Bug in syslogd under Esix 4.0.3
Date: 30 Dec 1992 04:50:23 -0500
Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
Distribution: world

There seems to be a fairly significant bug in syslogd under Esix
4.0.3.  After writing a log message to a file, syslogd does not flush
the log message from its buffer before writing the next log message.
Thus, each time it writes out a subsequent log message, all the
messages previous to that message are rewritten as well.  Naturally,
this makes for a rather rapidly-growing logfile.

Has anybody fixed this?  Has anybody ported another syslogd to Esix?
I just started running INN on this system, and INN does almost all of
its logging through syslogd.  Thus, I'm somewhat desperate to find a
syslogd that works correctly...

(And yes, I did try hacking on the syslogd provided with INN.  It
doesn't work properly with SVR4 STREAMS syslog device.)

-- 
Marc Unangst, N8VRH         | "Of course, in order to understand this you
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   |  have to remember that the nucleus of the atom
                            |  is squishy."
                            |    -W. Scheider, from a Physics lecture
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: specmarks and dx50s
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:55:50 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <VAGARWAL.92Dec18112835@dis9002.shearson.com>, vagarwal@dis9002.shearson.com (Virendra Agarwal) writes:
| 
| I would like to know how much RAM and Hard disk space is needed by different 
| PC Unix packages available.
| 
| 1- SCO Unix
| 2- Coherent
| 3- Linux
| 4- BSD386
| 5- Mach386
| 6- Interactive Unix

  You didn't ask:
   Dell V.4, minimum configuration, includes cc and networking, no gcc,
no X: fits in 72MB including swap (sorry, I don't have the df here).
Figure about 300MB to install everything Dell gives you if you select
the ALL option.

   SCO ODT 2.0 base install and development, 128MB (I did this on a
146MB drive, 16MB swap, 2MB user). Includes networking and X. You can
install the base, pull out X, merge, etc, and get this down some.

  You can probably run Linux in 10MB or less, but I'm not sure you can
easily install in that. I haven't done a small install since 0.97 due to
lack of time.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: David Mason <vid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Symphony Chipset Motherboards with Unix
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:49:13 GMT


Hi all,

For the last while, I had an old Intel chipset 486DX-25 motherboard, with no
cache. It gave me a number of problems, so recently I acquired a new Symphony
chipset based motherboard. I cannot get this thing to run my Unix, Consensys
V4.2. It just locks up while it is booting up. It runs DOS fine.

What I get is the "Booting the UNIX system" message, then it checks everything
out, then I get a PANIC and it writes 4000 pages of core. I've changed all the
parameters, I think, in most combinations. Does anyone have any "hints" or
even solutions? I've changed about everything in the BIOS. 

My system is SCSI Adaptec 1542B based, with 16MB of RAM. (4 X 4 MB simms, the
SIMMs are 9 chip SIMMs and they are tested OK). The only things in the system
are an ATI VGA Wonder, the Adaptec board, and a generic AT I/O with IDE (BIOS
HD disabled). 

The irritating thing is that with the old Intel chipset motherboard, I could
boot the UNIX fine. It just wouldn't keep working (PANICs every once in a
while).

I went for a Symphony chipset because I was told it's better than the other
chipsets. What is a good chipset, while I'm here? I've heard bad things about
Opti and UMC. A discussion of what is a good, cheap motherboard would be
useful to a lot of people.  


-- 
vid@zooid.guild.org             -->> ZOOiD Public Access Usenet 416 322-7876
From: Lucian_Dancanet@transarc.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: ESIX 5.3.2 C, for sale
Date: 26 Dec 92 04:26:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: transarc.QfD6iJb0BwwwRjawJJ
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA



Complete development package, on 5 1/4" floppies, including the Release Notes:

Base System
System Administation Software
Editing Package
C Software Development Set
Security Administration Package
Extended Terminal Interface Package
Remote Terminal Package
Form and Menu Language Interpreter
Framed Access Command Environment
2-Kilobyte File System Package
XENIX File System Package
Networking Support Utilities
TCP/IP Network
Ethernet Driver
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
Network File System
Remote File Sharing Package
X Window System
1/4" Cartridge Tape Driver


Price: $175 OBO

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucian N. Dancanet           Transarc Corporation           phone: 412-338-4496
 Systems Designer     707 Grant St, Pittsburgh, PA 15219    fax:   412-338-4404
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Booting DOS or Unix optionally from the same HD?
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 23:18:30 GMT

In article <BzFnwF.6ox@leo.irv.icl.com> tim@leo.irv.icl.com (Tim Holdener) writes:

>After installing Unix, the system always booted Unix from the
>hard disk.  The only way I could boot DOS was to place a DOS boot
>diskette in the floppy drive.  Does anyone know a method of
>configuring such a system to allow the option of booting either
>Unix or DOS from the same hard disk?  I'm sure an appropriate
>BIOS would work, but can I buy such a PROM commercially?

There are a variety of "boot-managers" available, some even public
domain. The only one that I have used is the one that comes bundled
with OS/2 2.0 -- it allows up to three different O/S's to be booted
from the first hard drive using a menu, and if a menu choice is not 
made within 30 seconds (user selectable), it will boot from the
specified default partition. It works with a variety of different
operating systems, but not all. For example, Microsoft put code into
their NT operating system to refuse to boot if the OS/2 [specifically]
boot manager is present.

I have never seen a BIOS that provides boot manager services -- although
I am sure that it could be done. The OS/2 boot manager sits in a 1 Cyl
partition on the hard drive.

orville

--------------------------------------           ******************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                           Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                         POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                        Voice: (602) 391-0821
Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net                Fax:   (602) 661-0660
--------------------------------------           ******************************
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux