INFO-VAX Sat, 08 Dec 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 672 Contents: DOSD - AUTOGEN doesn't create the DOSD sysdump.dmp file Re: DOSD - AUTOGEN doesn't create the DOSD sysdump.dmp file Re: Flight simulators, was: Re: Eureka ! X on the MAC OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: Unix for VMS guys Re: Unix for VMS guys ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:43:55 -0500 From: bradhamilton Subject: DOSD - AUTOGEN doesn't create the DOSD sysdump.dmp file Message-ID: <475A9F9B.3090200@comcast.net> Environment: VMS V8.3 Alpha The system manager's manual states that AUTOGEN will create the DOSD system dump file. AUTOGEN help states that this creation will take place during the GENFILES phase. Here is the relevant AUTOGEN output: Calculations for page, swap, and dump files. -------------------------------------------- Errorlog dumpfile calculations: No errorlog dump file modifications should be made. Errorlog dumpfile will remain at 42 blocks. Dump file calculations: Current dump file is $1$DKB400:[SYS0.SYSEXE]sysdump.dmp This file does not now exist. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No dump file modifications should be made. Dumpfile on device $1$DKB400: will remain at 0 blocks. For crash dumps to be written to dump files off the system disk, the console environment variable DUMP_DEV must be set equal to DUMPFILE_DEVICE ($1$DKB400:) as specified in MODPARAMS.DAT. Also, the DUMPSTYLE parameter must have bit 2 set. WARNING: CONSOLE DEVICE NAMES DO NOT ALWAYS MATCH VMS NAMES! So, it seems that the documentation and help files are missing an important bit of information - that the dump file needs to be created by "hand" (indeed - once I created the dumpfile via SYSGEN, AUTOGEN no longer complained). Does this tally with everyone's experience, or did AUTOGEN perform this function at one time, and no longer does so? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:42:57 -0500 From: bradhamilton Subject: Re: DOSD - AUTOGEN doesn't create the DOSD sysdump.dmp file Message-ID: <475AAD71.4080509@comcast.net> bradhamilton wrote: > Environment: > VMS V8.3 Alpha [...] > So, it seems that the documentation and help files are missing an > important bit of information - that the dump file needs to be created by > "hand" (indeed - once I created the dumpfile via SYSGEN, AUTOGEN no > longer complained). > > Does this tally with everyone's experience, or did AUTOGEN perform this > function at one time, and no longer does so? To answer my own question, (after further investigation) MODPARAMS.DAT contains DUMPFILE=0, which apparently causes AUTOGEN to stay away from *creating*/re-sizing the dump file (I thought that *FILE=0 would merely tell AUTOGEN not to re-size). Sorry. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:54:51 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Flight simulators, was: Re: Eureka ! X on the MAC Message-ID: Simon Clubley wrote: > Of course, you could just run a modern flight simulator on your Mac. :-) Not the same as the venerable "flight" on VMS. (Besides, I had created a world for montreal, complete with the airport buildings and mont-royals as well as place ville-marie (had written a DXF to .world source file app, and I'll have to redo it now :-( ;-( I had also created a souped up version of the Concorde with enough Ummmph to reach escape velocity ! (had to be extremely careful below 50k feet altitude because aircraft would breakup if going too fast). > Have a look at http://www.flightgear.org/ if you are interested. It is downloading as I type this. I've found OS-X to have pretty good multi tasking scheduling. The other day, I was listining to itunes radio (real time processing), while converting a CD to MP3 and running an old Sound-Edit application to record the music being produced by Itunes and it all worked without missing a beat. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 05:00:52 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects around the world. Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards. Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set). It, way too late now, of course. But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:40:21 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uusim=E4ki?= Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536df3@news.fv.fi> JF Mezei wrote: > Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects > around the world. > > Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people > trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will > pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap > laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is > Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's > firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards. > > Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr > Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load > VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers > have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources > needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had > been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the > world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set). > > It, way too late now, of course. > > But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully > they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first. Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would have been ready for putting into a laptop case. I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result would be too uncertain. In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops. Regards, Kari ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 04:06:07 -0800 (PST) From: IanMiller Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <14f94bc8-9c65-46e7-bcea-e69a92b79713@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com> The alphabook was a wonderful thing and really expensive. It cost the same as a VMS workstation at the time and I think people bought VMS workstations instead. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 12:31:54 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <5rvh5qF16r2k3U2@mid.individual.net> In article <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536df3@news.fv.fi>, Uusimäki writes: > JF Mezei wrote: >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects >> around the world. >> >> Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people >> trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will >> pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap >> laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is >> Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's >> firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards. >> >> Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr >> Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load >> VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers >> have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources >> needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had >> been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the >> world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set). >> >> It, way too late now, of course. >> >> But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully >> they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first. > > Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert > e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about > everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the > graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would > have been ready for putting into a laptop case. > I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to > fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never > have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result > would be too uncertain. > > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for > some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what > you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops. BUt it would have lacked the most important part needed for this program. A price low enough to give away a million of them. The recently released EeePC is $300-400 and it is not part of this program because it is being sold at a profit. You can figure the likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a project like this. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:21:29 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: Bill Gunshannon wrote: > likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook > cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a > project like this. The OLPC machines are designed to be inexpensive and robust. They were a real challenge to design/build. They do not have a hard disk, they have flash disk. (makes unit far more robust). Obviously, a 1990s Digital would have genetically been unwilling to start a project for a really cheap vax/alpha. But when you look at the current technology and prices, surely it should be possible today to build some cheap machine that can run VMS. Remember that there are probably a gazillion tax breaks for those building the machine so their costs are even lower. This is all part of a humanitarian project. Say VAX had continued to be developped and Digital had become succesful again. (just for sake of dicsussion). Say current vaxes ran at 3ghz in a 45nm process. Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3. Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated into a "luxury" device with high price markup. But when you get industries to cooperate on a humanitarian project, I suspect that all those artificial markups go away and those small components all of a sudden become quite affordable. Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business" laptops that use state of the art LCD displays. So, If Digital existed today and decided to participate in that project, I am sure they could build a very low cost vax or even alpha. Could the alpha be build/configured to be used as a 32 bit machine ? (aka: requires far less RAM to run and its executables would be smaller) ? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:38:57 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <0cb14cd4-c2c7-41c6-be7c-c07bc6dc8588@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 8, 7:31 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536...@news.fv.fi>, > Uusim=E4ki writes: > > > > > JF Mezei wrote: > >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects > >> around the world. > > >> Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people > >> trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will > >> pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap > >> laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is > >> Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop'= s > >> firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards. > > >> Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr > >> Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load= > >> VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers > >> have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resource= s > >> needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS ha= d > >> been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the > >> world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set). > > >> It, way too late now, of course. > > >> But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully= > >> they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux f= irst. > > > Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert > > e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about > > everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the > > graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would > > have been ready for putting into a laptop case. > > I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to > > fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never > > have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result > > would be too uncertain. > > > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for > > some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what > > you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops. > > BUt it would have lacked the most important part needed for this > program. A price low enough to give away a million of them. The > recently released EeePC is $300-400 and it is not part of this > program because it is being sold at a profit. You can figure the > likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook > cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a > project like this. > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves= > b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include The problem with this argument is that it is comparing apples to oranges. Are regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops currently cheap enough to give away? NO! That's apples to apples (and Apples!). The question how much it would cost if one went through the same procedure to make cheap VMS laptops. Remember, while these laptops are very cheap and have some capabilities regular laptops lack, they are very limited compared to regular laptops in other ways. And keep in mind the assumption that VMS would have already been ported to the appropriate architecture, etc., etc., You can't assume what would it cost to do this now. That was not the point. (Another level of apples to oranges!). Just what shortcomings were you thinking of? AEF ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 15:16:51 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <5rvqr2F16k74vU1@mid.individual.net> In article , JF Mezei writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook >> cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a >> project like this. > > > The OLPC machines are designed to be inexpensive and robust. They were a > real challenge to design/build. They do not have a hard disk, they have > flash disk. (makes unit far more robust). As does the ASUS EeePC. Mine has 4GB. You can install XP on it with no problem although it is a little cramped. Of course, the next version is going to come out with 8GB so XP will be very doable. One can only hope people have enough sense to not do it. > > Obviously, a 1990s Digital would have genetically been unwilling to > start a project for a really cheap vax/alpha. > > But when you look at the current technology and prices, surely it should > be possible today to build some cheap machine that can run VMS. Yeah, but what chance would it have being unleashed on the masses (and inparticular, un-educated and mostly semi-literate masses who are the primary target for this project) without a really good GUI and point- and-click applications? > > Remember that there are probably a gazillion tax breaks for those > building the machine so their costs are even lower. This is all part of > a humanitarian project. Most organizations like this don't pay taxes so there is no additional tax break because of what they are doing. The big savings is in not needing to make a profit to please your stockholders. But then, that hasn't detered HP from flushing a profit center like VMS down the toilet. > > Say VAX had continued to be developped and Digital had become succesful > again. (just for sake of dicsussion). Say current vaxes ran at 3ghz in a > 45nm process. > > Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the > rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3. And running what? > > Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are > built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a > premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated > into a "luxury" device with high price markup. Then why was mine less than $400? > > But when you get industries to cooperate on a humanitarian project, I > suspect that all those artificial markups go away and those small > components all of a sudden become quite affordable. Industries aren't intersted in "humanitarian projects" they are interested in making profits. If they don't, they don't remain industries for very long. > > Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of > they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up > production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also > explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business" > laptops that use state of the art LCD displays. Mine has a very nice collor display, thank you. I doubt there is any savings today in not having color. Monochrome screens would have to be specially made as no one is using them. Not even my telephone. This would likely make them more expensive than color. > > So, If Digital existed today and decided to participate in that project, > I am sure they could build a very low cost vax or even alpha. Could the > alpha be build/configured to be used as a 32 bit machine ? (aka: > requires far less RAM to run and its executables would be smaller) ? Not even worth thinkin about...... bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:24:18 +0100 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: Uusimäki schrieb: > > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for > some reason it never became popular. Price ? There were also SparcBooks, PA-RISC books and RS/6000s as ThinkPads, running their respective UNIX, but they did not take off because they simply were too expensive for the average user. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 15:27:51 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <5rvrfnF16k74vU2@mid.individual.net> In article <0cb14cd4-c2c7-41c6-be7c-c07bc6dc8588@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > On Dec 8, 7:31 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: >> In article <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536...@news.fv.fi>, >> Uusimäki writes: >> >> >> >> > JF Mezei wrote: >> >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects >> >> around the world. >> >> >> Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people >> >> trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they will >> >> pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap >> >> laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that is >> >> Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the laptop's >> >> firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards. >> >> >> Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr >> >> Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load>> >> VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers >> >> have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources >> >> needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had >> >> been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the >> >> world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set). >> >> >> It, way too late now, of course. >> >> >> But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefully>> >> they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Linux first. >> >> > Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert >> > e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about >> > everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the >> > graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it would >> > have been ready for putting into a laptop case. >> > I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to >> > fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would never >> > have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result >> > would be too uncertain. >> >> > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for >> > some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what >> > you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops. >> >> BUt it would have lacked the most important part needed for this >> program. A price low enough to give away a million of them. The >> recently released EeePC is $300-400 and it is not part of this >> program because it is being sold at a profit. You can figure the >> likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook >> cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a >> project like this. >> >> bill >> >> -- >> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves>> b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. >> University of Scranton | >> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include > The problem with this argument is that it is comparing apples to > oranges. How so? > Are regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops currently cheap > enough to give away? NO! OLPC is not giving away "regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops" it is giving away OLPC Laptops. My ASUS EeePC IS a "regular Linux" laptop and it can run Windows as well. And, even with the need to make a profit it is selling for less than $400. Real cost is probably in the neighborhood of around $200. > That's apples to apples (and Apples!). The > question how much it would cost if one went through the same procedure > to make cheap VMS laptops. Well, if you want to be pedantic, I can run VMS on my EeePC. Just load SIMH and then load VMS. The question being who would want to? It would definitely not fit the criteria for the OLPC program. > Remember, while these laptops are very > cheap and have some capabilities regular laptops lack, they are very > limited compared to regular laptops in other ways. I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality. My cheap EeePC has all the capabilities of my IBM Thinkpad and comes pre-configured to do a lot of things that took considerable adjustment to do on the Thinkpad. > And keep in mind > the assumption that VMS would have already been ported to the > appropriate architecture, etc., etc., You can't assume what would it > cost to do this now. That was not the point. (Another level of apples > to oranges!). > Just what shortcomings were you thinking of? The total lack of a usable interface and the necessary applications for it to be usable by the target audience. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:26:22 GMT From: Roger Ivie Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > JF Mezei writes: >> Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the >> rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3. Seems to me that newer chips are more power efficient than older ones. If the goal is to build something that can last a while and use little power, you'd want to use the latest technology. >> Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are >> built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a >> premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated >> into a "luxury" device with high price markup. > > Then why was mine less than $400? I think he's trying to say the Eee PC isn't a "real" laptop. >> Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of >> they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up >> production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also >> explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business" >> laptops that use state of the art LCD displays. No, actually, they don't. The LCD in the OLPC uses a new technology created for the OLPC folks and is one of the reasons the machine took so long to come out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1#Display -- roger ivie rivie@ridgenet.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:33:03 GMT From: Roger Ivie Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I > really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality. As I understand, the functionality concerns involve the limited amount of RAM (OLPC is 256MB, Eee PC is 512MB; I don't think the OLPC RAM is in a socket) and simple flash (i.e., the OS has to manage wear levels because the flash doesn't do it; you can't just load any old OS up and expect it to be able to use the flash as a disk).o -- roger ivie rivie@ridgenet.net ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 17:33:28 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <5s02r8F16hh7aU1@mid.individual.net> In article , Roger Ivie writes: > On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article , >> JF Mezei writes: >>> Those laptops could be using vaxes from 2 generations back, or used the >>> rejects from current production and set at 1ghz instead of 3. > > Seems to me that newer chips are more power efficient than older ones. > If the goal is to build something that can last a while and use little > power, you'd want to use the latest technology. > >>> Real laptops today cost a lot because, as a status symbol, they are >>> built with as many features as possible, and all suppliers charge a >>> premium for the smaller devices because they know it is to be integrated >>> into a "luxury" device with high price markup. >> >> Then why was mine less than $400? > > I think he's trying to say the Eee PC isn't a "real" laptop. Yeah, but JF saying it doesn't make it fact. :-) > >>> Also, those OLPC laptops use much older LCD screens (not even sure of >>> they are colour). This means that pproducing them doesn't use up >>> production lines dedicated to hgh value LCD screens. And it also >>> explains a big cost difference between those laptops and "business" >>> laptops that use state of the art LCD displays. > > No, actually, they don't. The LCD in the OLPC uses a new technology > created for the OLPC folks and is one of the reasons the machine took so > long to come out. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1#Display bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 17:35:56 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <5s02vsF16hh7aU2@mid.individual.net> In article , Roger Ivie writes: > On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I >> really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality. > > As I understand, the functionality concerns involve the limited amount > of RAM (OLPC is 256MB, Eee PC is 512MB; I don't think the OLPC RAM is in > a socket) and simple flash (i.e., the OS has to manage wear levels > because the flash doesn't do it; you can't just load any old OS up and > expect it to be able to use the flash as a disk).o I assume you mean for the OLPC as the EeePC loads Linux, Windows or even BSD. The only things lacking at this stage are network and display drivers for BSD. Linux works fine and so does XP. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:47:39 GMT From: Roger Ivie Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , >> I think he's trying to say the Eee PC isn't a "real" laptop. > > Yeah, but JF saying it doesn't make it fact. :-) Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've had mine since Tuesday and am totally smitten. The thing is very nifty. -- roger ivie rivie@ridgenet.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:52:32 GMT From: Roger Ivie Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > Roger Ivie writes: >> On 2007-12-08, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I >>> really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality. >> >> As I understand, the functionality concerns involve the limited amount >> of RAM (OLPC is 256MB, Eee PC is 512MB; I don't think the OLPC RAM is in >> a socket) and simple flash (i.e., the OS has to manage wear levels >> because the flash doesn't do it; you can't just load any old OS up and >> expect it to be able to use the flash as a disk).o > > I assume you mean for the OLPC as the EeePC loads Linux, Windows or even > BSD. The only things lacking at this stage are network and display drivers > for BSD. Yep. I loaded up NetBSD 3.1 on mine as an experiment yesterday. Didn't get as far as bringing up X; I was running off an SD and wasn't terribly thrilled with the SD performance. I'll give it another go when the network drivers get sorted out. > Linux works fine and so does XP. Running XP on mine. Legally as soon as UPS delivers my extra RAM and non-dodgy XP. I wouldn't need the extra RAM if I didn't want to run World of Warcraft. -- roger ivie rivie@ridgenet.net ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 12:23:10 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <5rvgleF16r2k3U1@mid.individual.net> In article <4759f8d2$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >>>> RUN AUTHORIZE vi /etc/passwd >> >> And the example above would be akin to using EDT to change entries in >> SYSUAF. > > Not quite. EDT would ruin SYSUAF.DAT every time. I am sure vi passwd > would succeed in most cases. A very bad assumption as it only takes on failure for disaster. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 14:51:22 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <5rvpb9F16a7q8U1@mid.individual.net> In article <475A08B7.80707@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >>>> >>>>> RUN AUTHORIZE vi /etc/passwd >>>> >>> >>> And the example above would be akin to using EDT to change entries in >>> SYSUAF. >> >> >> Not quite. EDT would ruin SYSUAF.DAT every time. I am sure vi passwd >> would succeed in most cases. >> >> Arne >> > > I think Bill is coming from a data center/large server environment > whereas I'm coming from a small server/workstation environment. > > If you have a couple of thousand users with three or four hundred logged > on at any one time, vi /etc/password would be a very dangerous thing to do! > > In a workstation environment vi /etc/password is not a terribly > dangerous thing to do. Those, BTW, are the circumstances under which I > learned to do it that way. What does the size of the datacenter have to do with wether or not you do something the right way or the wrong way? If you want to exit your password file there are proper tools to do it. "vipw" has been around since 1980 (introduced in BSD 4.0). In a modern system, linux, BSD, Solaris, IRIX, HPUX, AIX, whatever. If you "vi /etc/passwd" you will very likely trash your system as that is only the public presentation of the password file and not where the real data is actually kept. The real password file is going to be "master.passwd" or "shadow". And hand editing either of these will leave your /etc/passwd out of sync which is likely to cause all kinds of headaches. Oh, I just looked at what you wrote above and your actually right. "vi /etc/password" is going to be harmless. It is also going to be useless as all it will do is create a file called "/etc/password" if you save youe work when your done. Cause there is no such file. :-) > > BTW, does Unix even HAVE mandatory locking yet? > > Twenty years or so ago I had to write a script to add a new user; if > IRIX had such a thing I never found it. It added an entry to > /etc/passwd, created a directory for the new user, set the ownership and > permissions, gave him a .login and .profile etc, etc. > > IRIX may well have had such a script but, given the Unix tradition of > naming things after dogs or with the initials of the author I might > never have found it. VMS makes it a lot easier by using the obvious > English words for things; e.g. COPY, PRINT, TYPE, EDIT, etc. I've never > actually seen it but I believe that VMS has command tables available in > languages other than English. And Unix can have commands named whatever you like and in whatever language suits your fancy. Tandy used to ship a shell with their XENIX systems that had all the MSDOS commands. I once wrote a shell that presented the menu system familiar to UCSD-Pascal users and worked just like it. that's one of Unix strengths. You can easily make it look like anything you want. Even VMS, if anyone really wanted it to look like that!! bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.672 ************************