MAILER-DAEMON@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (06/12/90)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 mcimail.com.tcp... 554 Service unavailable 554 wstenson@mcimail.com... Service unavailable ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: from cim-vax.Honeywell.COM by honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (5.59/25-eef) id AA08339; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:37:50 CDT Message-Id: <9006112037.AA08339@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Date: 11 Jun 90 15:40:00 CST From: info-minix%udel.edu@VM1.NoDak.EDU Subject: Re: Efficiency vs Effectiveness To: "wstenson" <wstenson@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Return-Path: <MINIX-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Received: from VM1.NoDak.EDU by cim-vax.honeywell.com with SMTP ; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:39:22 CST Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by VM1.NoDak.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1MX) with BSMTP id 8273; Mon, 11 Jun 90 11:53:57 CDT Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8267; Mon, 11 Jun 90 11:53:56 CDT Date: Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:48:31 GMT Reply-To: INFO-MINIX%UDEL.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Sender: INFO-MINIX-ERRORS%PLAINS.NODAK.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was info-minix-request@UDEL.EDU From: David Umbaugh <umbaugh%EVAX.ARL.UTEXAS.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Subject: Re: Efficiency vs Effectiveness Comments: To: info-minix@udel.edu To: Multiple recipients of list MINIX-L <MINIX-L@NDSUVM1> On 11 Jun 90 04:07:11 GMT, V2057A%TEMPLEVM.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu (Juan Jose Noyles) said:Juan> Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU [Lots of blabber about effectiveness, efficiency and kernel omitted.] Juan> just an old junior grade hack. They're the only ones that claim that it's okay Juan> to waste code because the machine's more powerful, or bitch because it's not. I think it was that old junior grade hack, Harlan Mills, who said, "allways use the highest level language that will do the job, even if its JCL." [Quoted from memory, certainly inaccuratly.] Then there was that "Programming Pearls" column in CACM in which Jon Bentley suggested that one might sort a file using a one line shell command rather than to write a sort routine optomized for the specifics of the problem at hand. What a horrible waste of machine cycles. Execution efficiency is only one concern in program design. Often, it is one of the less important considerations. -- L. David (Dave) Umbaugh <umbaugh@evax.arl.utexas.edu> Computer Science Engineering University of Texas at Arlington <B652LDU@UTARLG> BITNET PO Box 19015 Arlington, TX 76012
MAILER-DAEMON@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (06/12/90)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 mcimail.com.tcp... 554 Service unavailable 554 wstenson@mcimail.com... Service unavailable ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: from cim-vax.Honeywell.COM by honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (5.59/25-eef) id AA08344; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:37:59 CDT Message-Id: <9006112037.AA08344@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Date: 11 Jun 90 15:40:00 CST From: info-minix%udel.edu@VM1.NoDak.EDU Subject: Re: Needing TOS to format (was Needing DOS to format) To: "wstenson" <wstenson@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Return-Path: <MINIX-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Received: from VM1.NoDak.EDU by cim-vax.honeywell.com with SMTP ; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:39:07 CST Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by VM1.NoDak.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1MX) with BSMTP id 6945; Mon, 11 Jun 90 11:20:09 CDT Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6940; Mon, 11 Jun 90 11:20:07 CDT Date: Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:14:26 GMT Reply-To: INFO-MINIX%UDEL.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Sender: INFO-MINIX-ERRORS%PLAINS.NODAK.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was info-minix-request@UDEL.EDU From: Vincent Archer <archer%segin4.segin.fr%PRIME.COM@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Subject: Re: Needing TOS to format (was Needing DOS to format) Comments: To: info-minix@udel.edu To: Multiple recipients of list MINIX-L <MINIX-L@NDSUVM1> Rob J. Nauta ( wsinrn@win.tue.nl, wsinrn@tuewsn.lso.win.tue.nl) writes: > [stuff from me about tos formatting] > I've been wondering about something, since IBM invented the IBM-PC, a lot > has happened, especially in hardware. The original PC started out with > single-sided, 160K drives, with 8 sectors/track, later on DOS started using > 9 sectors/track. Nowadays DOS still uses 9 sectors/track, while other OS's > use more, 10 or 11, the amiga packs 880K on a 3.5" disk. The hardware and > diskettes is the same, and since Minix is not bound by MS-DOS, is it possible > to put more than 720K on a 3.5" disk ? I won't answer for MS-DOS, but I'm now adapting my old 1.1 stwini.c that used to enable me to work with "any format" disks, with any number of tracks, sectors and sides on a ST. Given my hardware (I've got a cheap drive), I can support as much as 810K disks, with 81 tracks, 10 sectors, 2 sides (The Amiga use 80 tracks, 11 sectors on 2 sides). With the new driver, dd0 and dd1 vanish, the driver adapts itself to the disk type. I'm working on the format stuff, which was introduced since 1.1 Anyway, when you control the hardware, there's no reason not to push it to its limits - provided that everybody else will be able to do the same (I hate those software editors who use track 81 for protection scheme: I CANT ACCESS track above 80!!!). Vincent Vincent Archer | Email:archer%segin4.segin.fr@prime.com "People that are good at finding excuses are never good at anything else"
MAILER-DAEMON@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (06/12/90)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 mcimail.com.tcp... 554 Service unavailable 554 wstenson@mcimail.com... Service unavailable ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: from cim-vax.Honeywell.COM by honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (5.59/25-eef) id AA08332; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:37:43 CDT Message-Id: <9006112037.AA08332@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Date: 11 Jun 90 15:40:00 CST From: info-minix%udel.edu@VM1.NoDak.EDU Subject: subscribe To: "wstenson" <wstenson@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Return-Path: <MINIX-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Received: from VM1.NoDak.EDU by cim-vax.honeywell.com with SMTP ; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:39:51 CST Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by VM1.NoDak.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1MX) with BSMTP id 5436; Mon, 11 Jun 90 14:39:00 CDT Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5416; Mon, 11 Jun 90 14:38:58 CDT Date: Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:02:39 EXP Reply-To: INFO-MINIX%UDEL.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Sender: INFO-MINIX-ERRORS%PLAINS.NODAK.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU From: "Amauri M. Serra" <NCU99056%UFRJ.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Subject: subscribe To: Multiple recipients of list MINIX-L <MINIX-L@NDSUVM1> Subscribe minix-l Amauri M. Serra
MAILER-DAEMON@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (06/12/90)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 mcimail.com.tcp... 554 Service unavailable 554 wstenson@mcimail.com... Service unavailable ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: from cim-vax.Honeywell.COM by honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (5.59/25-eef) id AA08329; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:37:33 CDT Message-Id: <9006112037.AA08329@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Date: 11 Jun 90 15:40:00 CST From: info-minix%udel.edu@VM1.NoDak.EDU Subject: Re: Bloat costs To: "wstenson" <wstenson@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Return-Path: <MINIX-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Received: from VM1.NoDak.EDU by cim-vax.honeywell.com with SMTP ; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:40:10 CST Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by VM1.NoDak.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1MX) with BSMTP id 0998; Mon, 11 Jun 90 13:11:58 CDT Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0988; Mon, 11 Jun 90 13:11:56 CDT Date: Mon, 11 Jun 90 16:15:09 GMT Reply-To: INFO-MINIX%UDEL.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Sender: INFO-MINIX-ERRORS%PLAINS.NODAK.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was info-minix-request@UDEL.EDU From: Ken Thompson <kt4%PRISM.GATECH.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Subject: Re: Bloat costs Comments: To: info-minix@udel.edu To: Multiple recipients of list MINIX-L <MINIX-L@NDSUVM1> >In article <266577FA.6D99@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin): > > [stuff deleted] > >One of the wonderful things about 20Mip 32Mb workstations is that I >don't have to worry about eff. when writing most code. I can >concentrate on other issues such as clarity of code, speed of >execution, speed of development, fancy features, ... >> >by "eff." i mean "frugal of code and data". > I strongly disagree that efficiency(including code/date size) can reasonably be ignored. No matter how quickly the power of machines grow, the things that we want to do with them grow even faster. I believe it is a grave mistake not to be concerned with the efficiency of the algorithms used in programming. IMHO, this attitude has led to a severe decline in the capability of software vs. the hardware resources required to execute it. Note I did not say anything about the cost of these resources. I find this depressing to say the least. Ken -- Ken Thompson GTRI, Ga. Tech, Atlanta Ga. 30332 Internet:!kt4@prism.gatech.edu uucp:...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!kt4 "Rowe's Rule: The odds are five to six that the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train." -- Paul Dickson
MAILER-DAEMON@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (06/12/90)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 mcimail.com.tcp... 554 Service unavailable 554 wstenson@mcimail.com... Service unavailable ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: from cim-vax.Honeywell.COM by honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com (5.59/25-eef) id AA08625; Mon, 11 Jun 90 16:08:50 CDT Message-Id: <9006112108.AA08625@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Date: 11 Jun 90 15:57:00 CST From: info-minix%udel.edu@VM1.NoDak.EDU Subject: Re: kermit questions To: "wstenson" <wstenson@honmavd.mavd.honeywell.com> Return-Path: <MINIX-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Received: from VM1.NoDak.EDU by cim-vax.honeywell.com with SMTP ; Mon, 11 Jun 90 15:57:41 CST Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by VM1.NoDak.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1MX) with BSMTP id 6056; Mon, 11 Jun 90 14:51:00 CDT Received: from NDSUVM1.BITNET by NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6050; Mon, 11 Jun 90 14:50:58 CDT Date: Mon, 11 Jun 90 18:50:08 GMT Reply-To: INFO-MINIX%UDEL.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Sender: INFO-MINIX-ERRORS%PLAINS.NODAK.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was info-minix-request@UDEL.EDU From: "Kenneth J. Hendrickson" <kjh%POLLUX.USC.EDU@VM1.NoDak.EDU> Subject: Re: kermit questions Comments: To: info-minix@udel.edu To: Multiple recipients of list MINIX-L <MINIX-L@NDSUVM1> This question didn't get answered, so I'll pester everybody with it again: (1) When I log onto the big unix box using kermit, some of the ansi sequences don't work. The colours work ok, but clear to end of line and clear to end of screen don't work. Do I need to change my termcap file? (Note: kermit running under dos doesn't have this problem, but I don't wanna run dos. Also note that the termcap seems correct since vi /*elvis*/ runs flawlessly.) Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh