From: THETechnoid(a)home.com <THETechnoid(a)home.com>
>In Windows - ANY version, the applications are like different flavors of
>bullion and spices. They dissolve in the operating system and become
>virtually indistiguishable from the solute. If you make the mistake of
>mixing two incompatible flavors, you can't get only one flavor out of
the
This is indeed a secondary thing I dislike about MS. Though it's not
quite soup if the app your running is not MS. MS apps mingle with
the OS and make mush though I've pulled them out completely
with some work. The problem is more MS than the OS as things like
IE, OE and Office do not uninstall completely. They leave bits about
as reminders they were there. If your willing to hit the registry and
files system they can be removed bit it's a PITA. Its the price you
pay for ActiveX, COM, VBS and all the other MS hacks.
>> OS/2 V3 Close to NT maybe better on multitasking, security is
???
>
>OS/2 is significantly better than NT in the multitasking department and
>has no serious bugs I am aware of. OS/2 shippes (desktop versions) with
>essentially no SPECIAL security like NT does. It does have 'hooks' for
>this security and you can buy IBM or third-party software to latch into
>them and provide strong security. Warp Server versions are good
examples.
The lack of security in networked systems to me is a weakness. Even as
a home user now that I have DSL I have to thinkk about security so not
having
it is not a flaw but a weakness. Then again it's also V3 and rather old.
>I love these kinds of customers. They hire me, tell me what they want to
>do, but not HOW TO DO IT. Being who I am, I'd put Warp Clients on the
While I'm not told to use W95 or NT at work I ahve 40 users and 4 servers
and jumping to FreeBSD is a nontrivial task if the server is running
middleware like COLDfusion on Paradox databases.
>impartiality (or apathy) makes them practical. They put Windows on the
>desktop as clients to thier Warp servers to lower training requirements.
>Since these machines aren't being strained much, they serve thier
purpose,
>since the servers work fine, everybody is happy.
Exactly. In my case the servers are NT4 and NT3.51 and down time
is nearly unheard of. They are lightly loaded so it's fine.
>> WinNT4 I use it, best of the MS lot I've worked with.
>
>Much better than any other MS os except maybe DOS for stability. It has
>warts as does anything else, but it's biggest wart is the SOUP thing
which
>is death.
Its a problem but if you understand it it doesnt have to be. For example
I test
a lot of software that may be used. Rather than worry the uninstall
process
I image the disk (10gigs is under $100!!!), do my testing and go to the
image
to restore. The Unix approach is like VMS and I like it better but using
an
image accomplishes the same end as effectively. Copying apps from one
system to another under Winders is painful but it's COPYRIGHTED and
not supposed to be so that's not an issue at work.
>> Linux It's getting too loaded with MSisms
>
>Linux is kinda messy and poorly documented. I like it, but that is just
>me.
Yes but if you were building a work system that makes for a lot of
training and documentation as part of the work done. As an engineer
I've learned if it's not documented it cant be reproduced and didn't
exist.
>NetBSD is best I think. Then again, I don't spend my days trying to
keep
>brilliant kids from trashing my systems so someone may have a more
>informed opinion.
FreeBSD do do security regression testing so I find them the most secure
or at least I can identify the holes or other flaws.
>I just got into VMS recently so don't really have an opinion - YET :-0
Its an interesting OS. If your unix inculturated or used to say IBMisms
(non PC) then it may bug you. It is robust, uses the hardware well
and is reasonable enough. I like the grey wall (docs, lots of DOCS).
Part of it's robustness and all come from being married to a specific
processor (VAX) and 20+ years of maturity.
Then again if MS didn't morph the OS every 5 years to something
vastly different with a ton of legacy addons it could be better. Instead
we have Win3.1, W9x, WNT3/4,win2000 codebases and each trying to
eliminate the apps for the previous.
Oh, to me the OS is like razors. Give the handle away and sell the
blades. Problem is people keep changing the handle to keep
other guys from making blades for it. The latter is the Microsoft way.
Allison
From: Iggy Drougge <optimus(a)canit.se>
>>is taking a wreck like a 486/33 with 8mb ram and 120mb of disk and
>>making a printserver and still have 60mb unused.
>
>60 megs? You waste sixty megs on a printserver? My, that's resourceful.
Not.
Sure I could have dug up a smaller hard disk but that one was already
excess.
When you consider the 120mb IDE disk, 486box and all were picked up as
trash for the dumper, yes! It's has no floppy, headless{no tube}, no
mouse
or keyboard either. Cost was time to install from a loose CDrom drive.
It serves a HP color inkjet and a HP4L to 6 W95 users and doing that
with anything else is either more complicated or didnt' buy me a thing.
Runs 24/7 with only reboots for power loss (about 5-7 times a year).
Allison
From: Sellam Ismail <foo(a)siconic.com>
>If you need a good proxy server on as low end a system you can (win95 as
a
>proxy server? oi!) try the Linux Router Project. Can run on a lowly
386
An aside if W95 is only doing proxy server it's fine, just done ask it to
be
printserver and a local workstation as well. First it was a box I had
handy,
not that it was a best choice. Runs much better on NT4/WS minimal
running on a 486dx/66 in 20mb ram.
The LRP is already running on a SIIG3000 (brick sized 386/16 W/5mb ram)
and it's a good enough combo. It only has one eithernic due to internal
slot
limits, that one will later be a modem NAT/router from DSL down times.
Like many others I've gone DSL and the DSL modem needs NAT, firewall,
antivirus and proxy services in it so I have to look around too. My
preference
is FreeBSD or VMS running on a box with two EitherNICs so that my
backbone
is completely isolated from the DSL.
Allison
Since we are all in asbestos shorts/panties mode I might as well join in.
My neighbors think I know all about new computers because I have a garage
full of old computers. My most recent inquiries are similar to the
following.
Neighbor Q: I was trying to print a word document that I hadn't saved when
my computer locked up.
My Q: What else was running?
Neighbor A: All this stuff that runs when my computer starts up.
My Q: Any other programs?
Neighbor A: Well I was also dialed into AOL and running Napster.
Neighbor Q: Don't you have these same problems.
My A: I don't listen to music when I program and I don't use Napster.
My Q: When is the last time you purged any files?
Neighbor A: Does it do it automatically?
My Q: When is the last time you did a backup?
Neighbor A: Does it do it automatically?
My Q: Did you save the document?
Neighbor A: Does it do it automatically? I just spent 2 hours typing and now
I'm ready to print. When I'm finished editing I'll save the final copy.
My A: Leave it alone and I'll look at it when I get a chance.
I visit.
My Q: Why do you have both Norton and Macafe antivirus running?
Neighbor A: I need virus protection they start automatically.
MY Q: Why do you have AOL, AIM, and MSN running?
Neighbor A: Some came installed and I use AOL for access to internet, they
start automatically.
My Q: Why run Napster while you're typing?
Neighbor A: I always listen to music when I type, the computer is closer
than the stereo so I run Napster
System has 25 GB disk, 256 MB memory and 56% of resources available, no
keyboard response.
My suggestion: Don't do more than 1 thing at a time and you will not have
any problems.
Neighbor Q: I though computers allowed you to do lots of things at the same
time?
Neighbor Q: I really want to play games, download music and listen to it at
the same time
MY Q: Do you want to burn CD's?
Neighbor A: Yes
MY Q: Do you want to scan pictures and print them?
Neighbor A: Yes
My A: Get a CRAY computer
Neighbor Q: How much are they?
I feel much better now that I've vented.
People want a black box that works without them thinking, and that's what
they have been promised by Dell, Gateway and Compaq.
Mike
mmcfadden(a)cmh.edu
Hi,
[Firstly, for some reason I never received classiccmp digest #482. Could
someone be kind enough to email it to me, preferably compressed?]
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:11:35 -0500
> For Pr1me minis, hard drives have to be able to support a sector size
> of 2080 bytes, instead of or in addition to the usual 512-byte sector
> support. With Apple, their *first* hard drive (a non-SCSI unit) had
> things called disk tags that required drives that support a sector
> size of 576 bytes (from memory, probably wrong).
>
> I'm not defending the practice; while I assumed your remark was
> rhetorical, not everyone in the audience may be as well-informed
> as we are.
Sector size is sometimes/usually controllable by the user.
By issuing a format unit command with the appropriate parameters, some drives
can be formatted to (almost) any sector size. The 86MB Fujitsu hard disk that
I bought in 1991 came with a leaflet describing how to do this. The OEM manual
for any given drive should say whether the sector size can be altered.
This could be useful if you want to use a "normal" SCSI drive with some exotic
computer, or vice versa.
If you are not using a lame OS that has trouble with non-512-byte sectors,
"free" disk space may be obtainable by reformatting with larger sector size
such as 1K or 2K. Since there are fewer sector headers etc. with larger
sector
sizes, the disk capacity increases.
On some drives, the manufacturer name that the drive reports can be changed by
issuing the correct SCSI command(s). I have no idea what proportion of drives
support this; it is probably not common (I know Fujitsu 230MB MO drives do).
On a related subject, does anyone have OEM manuals for any old hard disks,
optical drives or any other SCSI devices? These are usually impossible to
obtain from the manufacturer, and can be very useful. In particular, I'd like
to get hold of OEM/SCSI manuals for:
Chinon CDS-435 CD-ROM
Fujitsu M2511 MO drive
Fujitsu M2612ESA hard disk
Fujitsu M3191F1/F2 scanner
Ricoh RH5500 50MB removable cartridge drive
Various Ricoh MO drives
Seagate ST1480N hard disk
-- Mark
From: Mike Ford <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com>
>My suggestion would be to use any 486 class hardware that you have handy
>that will easily support TWO network adapters. People tell me a decent
386
>will even work, but with a 486/66 you have a LOT more flexibility with
>memory etc.
I've tried a 386DX/40 (with cache) and it was as good as a 486/33. The
key
thing is availability of memory and peripherals for it. Also there are
the
problems like some 386 boards getting more than 8-32mb of ram on the
board is hard, expensive or impossible plus limited bios support for
large
(over 500mb) disks.
>A nice canned commercial package, but still free for home use;
www.gnatbox.com
I have to check this out. ;)
Allison
From: Mike Ford <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com>
>When you have a LOT of unix experience they do seem about as easy to
>install, but I am a fairly normal, knowledgable person and it took me
That is the culture and documentation thing. Plus, unix {and clones} is
an
OS not an application unto itself. So that means you can use it for
anything
BUT, anything you may want to do is not always documented in a direct
stepwise fashon.
>had to do, but the mechanics of doing it are much more familiar. Exiting
vi
>the first time I edited /etc/resolv.rc only took about an hour.
Well, having had to live with TECO, Vteco, ED {cpm version} and command
line editing inside VAX EDT {teco macros} a command line oriented visual
editor like VI is far less foreign. Be glad you didn't have to use unix
ED!
>at what price? (both in $ and failing to learn how to exit vi). When I
>recommend NetBSD, part of the recommendation is before you get started,
>join a support list (and I give a URL).
Do the words HELP! mean anything? It's a good idea.
>With windows the problem is the opposite, the damn thing wants to run
>EXACTLY the way it wants to with few if any user options and very much
at
>your own risk.
Well yes and no. To make a point yes it's more limiting, it was designed
for a different use (more like specific use). However if you learn how
to
manipulate the Registry, some of the .INI files and other burried bits
it's
possible to tune or even eliminate a lot. The first step is learning how
to install it with the opions you want and not the MS or CPU vendor
selected set. For example getting the W95 OSR2/USB OEM version
to NOT install AOL, ATT and Compuserve or the correct set of tools.
It does make a difference. If your using W98 (or 98second or ME)
using 98lite to eliminate some of the junk in the install process can
considerably lighten and speed the end result. But this is going far
beyond the usual level that even most W9x power users go.
In comparison, Unix users have gone to the level beyond the Windows
power user. Most are doing system integration (making a NAT box
lets say) and are even doing significant applications development.
You can do that with W9x but you need the SDKs and corrosponding
knowledge. In the end it's not an OS thing beyond having the fundemental
hooks in it.
There is nothing to say you couldn't have used:
WinNT
OS/2
BeOS
Minix
OpenDOS
or whatever to do the same project. Each would impose different
knowledge requirements and development loads. By the same token
each one would have differing paybacks in cpu, memory and storage
needed to accomplish the task to some given level of performance.
Anywho, where W95 is actually weak in my mind is isolation between
applications and the OS. The result is a misbehaving app or driver
can kill the system. Security is poor as well. The serious offense
and W98 (ME edition is best here) is TASK management and
scheduling. In all it's a low security and weak multitasking OS.
So if it doesn't perform with 10 tasks open then one should not
be surprized.
Based on the above comment I find this to be my opinion of multitasking
perfomance of OSs I've used or seriously looked at for PC hardware.
Poor Win3.11 little to no protection for the OS or tasks
W9x Limited OS and task protection and some
security.
OS/2 V3 Close to NT maybe better on multitasking,
security is ???
WinNT4 I use it, best of the MS lot I've worked with.
Linux It's getting too loaded with MSisms
Unix clones {FreeBSD, OpenBSD} good multitasking,
excellent security
BEST ..............unknown
I'm Biased as I don't think any of them are at the OpenVMS level of
reliability, performance or documentation. The latter, documentation
both in it's completeness and conciseness alone seperates it from
the PC OS listed though linux likely has by shear bulk come close.
Allison
From: Sellam Ismail <foo(a)siconic.com>
>
>And for the most part that's what Windows delivers, albeit sometimes
very
>poorly. I can be playing Casino99, listening to Napster tunes, surfing
>the web, checking my e-mail, have a telnet session open, and have
Outlook
>Express open, all concurrently. But then when I close down Casino99
while
>Napster is playing a tune, Napster crashes. Then it causes other shit
to
>go haywire sometimes, resulting in the need to reboot. This is on a
Dell
>Dimension 4100. A nice box.
Makes little difference what box it is one or mor eof the apps are broken
and killing others. Composted (yes cow dung is composted) as they are
would they run better under VMS or on a Sun, likely not just the core
dumps might be more interesting.
Then if you also looked even on a "Real OS, (tm)" youd find they still
buffer overflow, mem leak and leave garbage in memory or load broken
drivers. Just a few of the far to common offencesI've seen.
>If I would trade convenience for stability and run Linux instead, I
could
>do all these things, only faster, better, and cheaper (in terms of less
>medication for my high blood pressure caused by every Windows reboot).
Maybe, once you debug and recompile the apps.
Allison
From: Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org>
Subject: OT: Router Configuration
>SparcStation 2 with Solaris 7, of course some Pentium (and below)
computers,
>etc. available but I am clueless on what type of software could be used
to
>set this up. I would also like to put up a web server that most likely
would
>only be accessable (for the time being) from inside. My knowledge in the
>area of setting something like this up is pretty small. Any suggestions?
>Thanks.
Low end pentium running whatever you knew well.
I've tried W95(custom install, minimal system) with AnalogX Proxy server
on the DSL with good results with a 486dx/66 and 16mb ram.
NT4/WS running analogX Proxy was better on the 486dx/66 FYI.
There is LRP (Linux router project) and I'm sure FreeBSD and the right
stuff works well for this too.
Most anything works but what software is mostly a case of what you
know (can buy) and and configure. NAT/Router/Bridge/proxy/firewall
things do not that seem all that cpu intensive.
Allison
Folks,
Can you expect to say to a housewife : This is a Linux cd. Install it on
this computer and I expect you to have looked at these Internet sites by
tomorrow morning? It would have to be some housewife!! Linux needs far to
much work still to make it fit for the masses.
Wim
