>I found it interesting that the gnuplot port in tsx-11 binaries didn't
>support X11, but did write directly to the tube underneath X11. Could
>this be because it was the DOS version of gnuplot that was ported?
Well, I believe the GNUplot port was actually done before X was even
released for Linux, and may have been ported by someone with access to
a VGA-only system. One of the things to result from this port was the
VGA library, which some people have used to create graphics programs
that run directly under Linux without the overhead of X. (I, for
example, wrote a simple graphics program similar to the many screen
savers run on Mac and DOS systems - a set of lines bouncing around the
screen.)
Quote:>Even if this is not the case, from the point of view of a non DOS user
>(well, once long ago, but not too long ago, I did use DOS, but I
>wanted to become a Unix snob :-), I find it very interesting how much
>of DOS is infusing into Linux. I'm not saying this is good or bad;
>but it may be one or the other, it is probably mixed and inbetween.
>Does anyone else have any observations/thoughts on this?
I have definitely noticed this as well - the ties between Linux and
DOS are, in some ways, too strong. One of the things I see most often
requested as an addition to the root disk is mtools. People are
asking every few days, it seems, if they can run DOS programs under
Linux. Certainly these are ideas worth looking into, but they seem a
little too high on some people's priority list, especially as far as
running DOS programs is concerned.
Quote:>Other examples include the a number of ascii interface programs in
>the binaries /usr/bin. Let me thank the people who worked on those
>ports, I'm not belittling this at all.
I don't see your point here - what sorts of programs are you referring
to? Should there be more X programs?
Quote:>Many of the instructions that come on how to fix such and such require
>copying things from a DOS partition. This is very understandable
>since linux is in development; it tickles to think about a unix system
>being developed under DOS. However, I don't think that the DOS-Linux
>duality is going to go away. It appears that a lot of people are/will
>be using Linux as a curiosity on the side, or even a sort of DOS shell
>necessary to run some 'neat' unix stuff.
Although I don't recall any 'fixes' that required copying things from
a DOS partition, there definitely is a large focus placed on being
able to install from a DOS system, and operating DOS and Linux on the
same machine.
This results, I think, from the majority of people that are writing
the documentation have done that - I started out with DOS, and am now
running about 2/3 Linux, 1/3 DOS.
Linux isn't being developed under DOS, it's being developed under
Linux - the DOS comes in as people's primary (or secondary) OS, and is
quite common.
Quote:>My experience from running sys V on my home machine indicates that
>unix is not user friendly, nor is it a nice single user system in many
>respects. I can not picture many DOS users ever liking it, because,
>simply, it is too complicated. For example, I can't picture a
>biologist friend ever taking the time, or caring to take the time,
>to figure out how to create a new user.
I disagree here - DOS is not as easy as some would like to think, and
Linux can be just as easy to use as DOS, especially once you throw X
into the picture. It's just that people tend to do more under Unix
than DOS - setting up a newsfeed under Linux is hard, but it is just
as difficult, if not more, under DOS.
Quote:>How many people out there are doing *everything* as root with no
>passwd? Just turn the switch and go. (Damn, that sync command sure
>is a pain isn't it?).
Well, I'm in the habit of using the reboot command, under both DOS and
Linux. :) I log in as myself, too, and su to root all the time to do
things requiring that sort of permission.
I suspect, however, that you are largely correct in assuming it is a
lot of people - then again, with a single-user system, why not? Sure
it's a little more risky, but it can be a pain su'ing to root all the
time.
Quote:>Linux is not a DOS replacement, and it is not a DOS application, it is
>an operating system in and of its own. Unix is a harsh operating
>system which program developers love - but we can make it into
>anything we want.
Why can't we make it into anything the end user wants? There's no
reason that Linux can't be as easy to install and use as DOS, with
some small exceptional points (security is a bit stickier with Linux,
but even that is not much of a concept to grasp if explained well).
Quote:>Personally, I would like to see at least one purest branch of Linux,
>where program ports are brought from the Unix world, all instructions
>on how to install such and such don't mention the words turbo C,
>mcopy, DOS parttion, Microsoft, or Norton Utility. After all, the
>IBM pc isn't the first unix box to use an 80386. Perhaps a warning
>label on such software or instructions would be sufficient.
I agree here - two things need to happen in regards to installation
instructions, at least. The 'beginner' installation docs must make
more mention of using Linux tools to solve problems, and focus less
upon DOS tools. The 0.96 root disk will address some of these
problems, as will future kernel updates. Also, the presence of DOS
must not be assumed.
Secondly, there should be some sort of 'advanced' installation
documentation, for those that don't need quite as much hand-holding.
(For example, instead of a long diatribe on how to change the root
device in the boot image, a simple instruction to change the word at
offset 508d to be the major/minor number.)
Quote:>p.s. its just an opinion, and not a strong one either, I don't plan
>to go around pointing fingers: "this programmer is a card carring
>member of the DOS *". :-> | +++ <
Yes, my opinions on this matter are not particularly strong either,
but these are issues that I'm hoping/trying to address by improvements
to the root disk, and the addition of the supplemental disk. My goal
is to completely eliminate the need for DOS for the installation of
Linux. (Beyond, of course, the need to get the boot image and root
image onto diskettes - that requires some sort of OS to be present, of
course.)
--
+ Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95)
| Harvey Mudd College
+ This is all my words. Honest!
by