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 76012MAILER-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. SerraMAILER-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 DicksonMAILER-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