CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) (02/22/90)
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! The whole world is not Unix! As I've said before, I'm
running VM here, and I've got four VAXen running VMS. What works on Unix
doesn't necessarily work on either of the two.
And when are you people going to get the sticks out of your ***** and switch
to xx{en,de}code? Face it. EBCDIC may not be pretty, but it exists. And
it's all over the place. And you ought to support it. Currenty, you're
blocking the way for many users who would like to use the stuff posted here.
You people who are complaining [OH GOD! You might actually have to recompile
your {en,de}coder!! OH NO!] are being a bunch of lazy dweebs. Get off your
butts and do something worthwhile.
In the time we've wasted arguing about {en,de}coders and archivers, we could
have all upgraded.
Incidentally, I'm going to find out what systems PAK is currently available
for and when it will be available for others, and if source is being distrib-
uted. If we can get this running on everyone's machine, I think it would be
the best choice.
Virtually,
- Charles Martin Hannum II "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within."
(That's Charles to you!) "To life immortal!"
cmh117@psuvm.{bitnet,psu.edu} "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..."
c9h@psuecl.{bitnet,psu.edu} "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/22/90)
Sadly enough there are only 84 usable printable characters that can safely survive and EBCDIC translation. That's a shame, because 84^5 is just slightly less than 2^32, and 85^5 is bigger, so with 85 we could make a map 4 bytes to 5 printables encoder that only had a 20%+ expansion, instead of the 36%+ expansion of xxencode and uuencode. ABE's expansion in the ABE2 format (safe for EBCDIC) varies based on the file. Unfortunately it was not designed for packed data, but you get figures like this (including headers -- above figures did not do this): Text file /etc/termcap 5.8% Unix Binary /unix 17.4% DOS Binary kermit.exe 19.4% ARC File uupc.arc 37.8% ARC File (ABE UUE format) uupc.arc 38% Compressed file rfc822.Z 40% The last one is pretty much worst case. In such cases you can go to UUENCODE format which is pretty constant at 36% plus headers. The above were done without line numbers. The line numbers are a redundancy. Using them, you can take a scrambled ABE file, put it through 'sort' and get the data back in order. This is not normally needed, as DABE can already handle multi-block files with the blocks in the wrong order (or with duplicates) but if the user has a tiny dabe decoder, sort can do the trick to handle blocks in random order. (Not duplicates) ABE1 format does slightly better (16.5% on kermit.exe vs. 19.4 for ABE2 and 38% for UUENCODE) but it uses all printable characters, including the evil ones that die over BITNET. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dvlpde@cs.umu.se (Phillip Dale) (02/22/90)
In article <90052.182144CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: > >WAKE UP, PEOPLE! The whole world is not Unix! As I've said before, I'm >running VM here, and I've got four VAXen running VMS. What works on Unix >doesn't necessarily work on either of the two. > >And when are you people going to get the sticks out of your ***** and switch >to xx{en,de}code? Face it. EBCDIC may not be pretty, but it exists. And >it's all over the place. And you ought to support it. Currenty, you're >blocking the way for many users who would like to use the stuff posted here. >You people who are complaining [OH GOD! You might actually have to recompile >your {en,de}coder!! OH NO!] are being a bunch of lazy dweebs. Get off your >butts and do something worthwhile. > Oh boy! Sounds like some users are lazy! There are thousands of VAX/VMS users out there with just about millions of programs. This network is actually reserved for unix-users, so before you jump to conclusions and start complaining, check things out. What I don't understand is why YOU yourself don't get the source codes to some of the programs you wish to convert to VMS and convert them yourself! -- ================================================================================ It's amazing what one can accomplish when one doesn't know what one can't do!
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (02/24/90)
In article <90052.182144CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
<WAKE UP, PEOPLE! The whole world is not Unix! As I've said before, I'm
<running VM here, and I've got four VAXen running VMS. What works on Unix
<doesn't necessarily work on either of the two.
<And when are you people going to get the sticks out of your ***** and switch
<to xx{en,de}code?
Well, whenever it happens, it sure won't be because of postings like the one
above, I can assure you!
JMHO,
kEITHejackson@smu.uucp (Keith Jackson) (02/24/90)
In article <6937@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >In article <90052.182144CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: > ><WAKE UP, PEOPLE! The whole world is not Unix! As I've said before, I'm ><running VM here, and I've got four VAXen running VMS. what a waste! do you have any clue to _WHY_ UN*X people hate VM/VMS? C'mon, Charles, admit it. You're just pissed of because you never had the patience to actually learn UN*X and got stuck in a piss poor job playing with an antiquated OS :-) ><What works on Unix ><doesn't necessarily work on either of the two. being no fault of UN*X. if we got something neat that you can't do, why would that be a problem, other than for you, I mean? ><And when are you people going to get the sticks out of your ***** and switch ><to xx{en,de}code? > >Well, whenever it happens, it sure won't be because of postings like the one >above, I can assure you! yes, but it sure does provide a target rich environment for those who just LOVE to flame "stoopid" people's butts off ;-] OBJ: BTW, do any of you idiotic UN*X people know where a fellow idiot can get a _real_ `vi' editor for the PC? I've got one called `Z' which is as close as I've found (no mapping or abbreviations, though) I also downloaded two from SIMTEL20 (stevie & vi-19a, I think) but they weren't any better. If not, I'll just have to use the wonderful editor over on our campus VMS machine, called `xedit'. Appropriately named for those who speak `vi' ;^) For those who don't, we're laughing at you for not using an editor powerful enough to make games with the macros (yes, this has actually been done) You can even use it to edit files. Imagine that! and now for something completely stoopid... 1/2 * PS = PS/2 (half a computer) + 1/2 * OS = OS/2 (half an operating system) = 1/2 * brained scheme >kEITHe KeithJ -*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*-*^*- Keith Jackson {attctc, convex, texsun}!smu!jackson == jackson@smu.edu UN*X - live free or die
"Arnold G. Gill" <GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (02/24/90)
>the campus VMS machine has an editor called xedit. [plus derision of xedit - well deserved, I might add] You must really be talking about CMS amchines, not VMS! There is a major world of difference between the two. VM/CMS runs on IBM mainframes only, and is very close to being braindead - they still haven't strayed away from a page-oriented screen architecture. On the otherhand, VAX/VMS is an excellent operating system, with a great many advantages over UNIX. It has a far superior help system, and allows any unique shortening of commands/parameters to operate properly. Its disadvantages include being wordy, and having a lousy subdirectory structure. Unix is far better there. Also, the redirection and pipelineing capabilities of Unix are great. A proper operating system would amalgamate the two, taking the strengths of both. Of course, I want to know why this discussion is wasting bandwidth on comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. ------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Arnold Gill | | | Queen's University at Kingston | | | BITNET : gilla@qucdn | Damn, I need something here! | | X-400 : Arnold.Gill@QueensU.CA | | | INTERNET : gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca | | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/25/90)
Somebody in this group wrote: >...do you have any clue to _WHY_ UN*X people hate VM/VMS? Please don't ever put VM and VMS together in the same category. Just the thought of it makes me *Barf*. My question is: Do you have any clue why VMS people hate Unix? >and now for something completely stoopid... >1/2 * PS = PS/2 (half a computer) I'm inclinded to agree. > + >1/2 * OS = OS/2 (half an operating system) Now here I disagree. The reason that OS/2 hasn't caught on is mainly due to the strange quirk of the history of RAM prices. If the US government hadn't gotten the Japanese to restrict exporting RAM to the US, driving up RAM prices just at the moment OS/2 was ready to take off, there wouldn't have been a machine sold since 1985 with less than 4 megs in it, and we would ALL be running OS/2. If the market had not been squeezed off for larger system memory, it would have driven much faster development of application software as well as getting OS/2 itself finished and the world would be a much better place today. OS/2 is the first REAL operating system for personal computers. The only possible exception would be AmigaDos. I don't understand why people badmouth OS/2, when it has everything that everyone has been asking for in a system, and that the market has been providing via monstrous kludges such as loading piles of TSR's, and other monstrosities to try to build a multitask environment over DOS. If the objection is cost, well, the answer to that is the market system that balances supply, demand, and price. The price would be lower now if there were more buyers. There would be more buyers if RAM was cheaper. If the objection is its size and complexity, I would suggest that you do an objective compaison of it against any alternative, keeping in mind all the capabilities of OS/2. If the objection is the lack of multiuser capabilities, remember that OS/2 is designed to meet the need of single users in a networked environment. Each user is supposed to have his own cpu running OS/2. In a networked client/server arrangement, full multiuser support is provided for shared files, etc. If the objection is the lack of software, all I can say is, I, too am unhappy that OS/2 isn't doing better in the marketplace, but the problem is not with OS/2, it is a question of economics. Maybe it still will catch on. I think it will depend on how smart Microsoft is in the near future. They may have already blown their chances. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) (02/25/90)
In article <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: >OS/2 is the first REAL operating system for personal computers. > >John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." >jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching >ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system. So you don't think that minix is a real operating system? Could have suprised me. It is Unix version 7! Just because the source code is available doesn't make it bad. Just because it is inexpensive doesn't make it "unreal". Just because you can talk to the author right here by e-mail doesn't make it unprofessional. Just because there is a whole newsgroup for minix doesn't mean there isn't software available. As a matter of fact, all of the things I have listed are _ADVANTAGES_! Ken Hendrickson N8DGN kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
ce1zzes@prism.gatech.EDU (Eric Sheppard) (02/25/90)
In article <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: > > If the objection is cost, well, the answer to that is the market system > that balances supply, demand, and price. The price would be lower now > if there were more buyers. There would be more buyers if RAM was cheaper. > > If the objection is its size and complexity, I would suggest that you > do an objective compaison of it against any alternative, keeping in > mind all the capabilities of OS/2. My observation of OS/2 so far is that it's enormous and memory hungry, and EXPENSIVE! If the developers of OS/2 price this system competitively with MS/PC-DOS, then it will rapidly approach the critical mass point that is only dreamed of now. In addition, releasing system-call interrupt lists or other source code will allow more people to develop for OS/2. Right now, anyone can go to their neighborhood bookstore and pick up a book or two on MS-DOS programming, and develop a decent program. With Windows (and, I suspect, PM), you must shell out several hundred bucks for the development kit. I'd like to explore the capabilities and advantages of OS/2, but right now, it's cost-prohibitive. My guess is it will stay that way for a long time. Eric, tinkerer-at-large -- Eric Sheppard Georgia Tech | "Of course the US Constitution isn't Atlanta, GA | perfect; but it's a lot better than what ARPA: ce1zzes@prism.gatech.edu | we have now." uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ce1zzes
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/25/90)
In article <23071@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: >In article <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: >>OS/2 is the first REAL operating system for personal computers. >> >>John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." >>jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching >>ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system. > >So you don't think that minix is a real operating system? Could have >suprised me. It is Unix version 7! Just because the source code is >available doesn't make it bad. Just because it is inexpensive doesn't >make it "unreal". Just because you can talk to the author right here by >e-mail doesn't make it unprofessional. Just because there is a whole >newsgroup for minix doesn't mean there isn't software available. As a >matter of fact, all of the things I have listed are _ADVANTAGES_! Hey, I really didn't mean to imply anything bad about Minix. I wouldn't have wasted my .sig on it if I didn't think it was worth talking about! It is lean and clean, which can't be said for OS/2. But in saying that, we are also saying that there are a lot of things it doesn't have that we usually want, such as large memory model, support for the math chip in context switches, process swapping, possibly virtual (paged to disk) memory, NFS, a GUI, and so on. Really, I wasn't trying to slight Minix, I was bemoaning the state of OS/2. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
pfratar@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Paul Frattaroli - DCS) (02/27/90)
I have been following this topic since the first article was
posted to c.b.i.p.d, and I must say that this has been one of the most
amusing flame fests I have seen in a long time. :-) However, this
topic is really not appropriate to this news group, and it has seemed
to touch a "nerve" so to speak.
Please move it to E-Mail, it has been fun but it is wearing
out.
I wonder if Gene Spafford should add this to his topics not to
discuss in foo.bar newsgroup, like abortion in soc.women :-)
....Paul F
--
Paul Frattaroli - Department of Computing Services University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L-3G1 < pfratar@watshine.UWaterloo.ca > < pfratar@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (02/27/90)
In article <23071@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: <In article <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: <>OS/2 is the first REAL operating system for personal computers. <> <>John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." <>jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching <>ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system. < Hey, folks, this is really getting ridiculous: <So you don't think that minix is a real operating system? No, I don't give a flying fart in the wind as to whether its real, virtual or imaginary. But I DO care about is that this is COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC.D, meaning "Discussions about articles posted in the comp.sys.ibm.pc" newsgroup. Kindly keep this flatulence the hell OUT of c.b.i.p.d.!!!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! < Could have <suprised me. It is Unix version 7! Just because the source code is <available doesn't make it bad. Just because it is inexpensive doesn't <make it "unreal". Just because you can talk to the author right here by <e-mail doesn't make it unprofessional. Just because there is a whole <newsgroup for minix doesn't mean there isn't software available. As a <matter of fact, all of the things I have listed are _ADVANTAGES_! And some people thing the main newsgroup should be unmoderated. Gads, the crap we'd have floating around in there, then!!! kEITHe
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) (02/27/90)
GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Arnold G. Gill) writes: >>the campus VMS machine has an editor called xedit. >[plus derision of xedit - well deserved, I might add] > > On the otherhand, VAX/VMS is an excellent >operating system, with a great many advantages over UNIX. It has a far >superior help system, and allows any unique shortening of commands/parameters >to operate properly. Its disadvantages include being wordy, and having a >lousy subdirectory structure. Unix is far better there. Also, the >redirection and pipelineing capabilities of Unix are great. A proper >operating system would amalgamate the two, taking the strengths of both. Strictly speaking, none of the advantages you cite (for VMS) are part of the Operating System part of UNIX. UNIX actually consists of the Operating System (kernel) and then the UNIX System "environment". The UNIX command languages (shells - Bourne Shell, C Shell, etc...) do have their problems, and many times the lack of a decent help system has led many people to re-invent a decent help system. (Pointers to decent UNIX help systems would be appreciated ;-) > Of course, I want to know why this discussion is wasting bandwidth on >comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. So us "stoopid *nix freaks" can educate the poor, uneducated people who are stuck using that crippled, bastard, step-child of UNIX called dos, to the true power of "open system" computing. NOTE! NOTE! NOTE! lots of ;-) ;-) ;-) -- Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (02/28/90)
In article <6953@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >But I DO care about is that this is COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC.D, meaning >"Discussions about articles posted in the comp.sys.ibm.pc" newsgroup. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I believe you mean "comp.binaries.ibm.pc". -- Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com 35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519-884-2251 FAX: 519-884-8861
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (03/01/90)
In article <1990Feb28.151144.29709@mks.com> andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) writes: >In article <6953@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> I wrote: >>But I DO care about is that this is COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC.D, meaning >>"Discussions about articles posted in the comp.sys.ibm.pc" newsgroup. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I believe you mean "comp.binaries.ibm.pc". I believe you're absolutely right. Thanks for catching and correcting that. And my apologies for not seeing through the smoke being generated by my own flames!-) kEITHe PS - By now everyone has "Subject: Re: Stoopid *nix freaks!" in their kill file, anyway, right!?