Kits vs ready-made (was RE: Rebirth of IMSAI)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Wed Mar 31 22:04:28 1999

Kindly peruse the imbedded comments below.

regards,

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc_at_armigeron.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Kits vs ready-made (was RE: Rebirth of IMSAI)


>It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
>>
>> >> You're certainly right about the cost of documentation. That's why
it's
>> >> hard to recommend LINUX and some of the rather excellent pieces of
software
>> >> work which have been done in conjunction with it. The documentation
is
>> >> generally quite poor, and always several generations out of date.
>> >
>> >Eh? I'd much rather do something obscure with Linux given a standard
>> >distribution and _any_ linux book (of _your_ choice if you like) than do
>> >something simpler with, say, Windows given _every_ published book and
SDK.
>
> And I'd rather do with something that works without problems.
>
>> ... but I've had VERY little trouble with '95.
>
> When I first ran '95, it was because a project I was working on required
>it (or a Solaris box, but we couldn't afford a true Sun, and Solaris for
the
>x86, which is also expensive, isn't that great). For the year I used the
>box I had no problems with it. Well, a few. Okay, it took too long to
>change the dial up networking, and swapping the mouse (bus for serial and
>back again several times) was an hour or so of frustration. And then there
>was the time I put the machine on the local network only to have it insist
>on dialing up. But other than that, it worked. I even got the Microsoft
>telnet client to behave (although that required a registry hack).
>
> It was only after a month of someone else using it (and installing a crap
>load of applications, mostly Microsoft ones) did it become totally
unsuable,
>to the point where I nearly lost some very important files because it
>refused to boot.
>
> I tried installing '95 six times from scratch (across two days) and
>failing miserably at it. Got fed up enough to install Linux on the thing
>(the project I needed '95 for was long finished) and never had a problem
>with the box after that.
>
> Then again, I've been using Linux regularly since '92 and remember the
>days of downloading 40 disk images ...
>
>> At the POP, there are three LINUX boxes running satisfactorily for over a
>> year, as terminal server, among other things, and one really can't
complain.
>> I just complained because of the documentation maze, which is certainly
in
>> ample evidence.
>
> Which is not to say I haven't had my share of problems with Linux. The
>first time I connected two Linux boxes via PPP took myself and another
>friend 16 hours to get working (with a few long distance calls to a friend
>who helped us imensely). And we were NOT computer illiterate people (I had
>been using Unix for four years at that point). The next time we got PPP
>working it only took four hours.


Yes, getting PPP to work on the terminal server for the ISDN lines (the
first one we did) was a real pain. Linux doesn't like having you go
directly into the system with out a stop at the shell, even though that's
MUCH more secure.

> Then recently was the IDE/SCSI fiasco (system with both SCSI and IDE
>drives, with the boot drive being SCSI. Upgrading the kernel in THAT
system
>is a nightmare let me tell you, lilo being braindead in that situation
(``No
>damn you! The SCSI disk! The SCSI disk! Why the _at_#$@#$@ did you put the
>Q#_at_#$ kernel on the IDE? DIE LILO SCUM!'')).


You must have been reading my mail!

>> Example: Simple tasks like installing LINUX on an ESDI drive larger than
>> what the BIOS supports are not supported by any written documents, though
>> the writing about other drive types (not SCSI) may shed light on it,
though
>> the doc's about EIDE are also conflicting. These are made hopelessly
>> complicated by the various often self-contradictory attempts at
describing
>> what's to be done. I finally gave up on the half-dozen or so conflicting
>> write-ups I had and worked the details out with a fellow in Germany who,
>> though his English was limited, as is my German-"computerese," managed to
>> convince me that it was really quite straightforward.
>
> I found this works (especially under RedHat). Make three partitions, the
>first physical one small, 5M is more than enough space. The second I
>usually make swap (typically twice the physical RAM, max swap space for a
>single partition is 128M, but you can have multiple swap partitions) and
the
>third the rest of the disk. Turn off DOS compatibility (if using Linux's
>version of fdisk. There might be an option under Disk Druid, but I don't
>use that). Mark the first partition as bootable.


That's about what I wound up doing. . .

> The first partition becomes `/boot' where the kernel resides, and that
>takes care of the problems of large disks not supported properly under the
>BIOS. The third partition becomes '/' and contains the rest of the file
>system. When you format the drives, select logical addressing (under the
>RedHat installation program, it says use this for SCSI, I use it for any
>type of drive system).


what I said before . . .

> Of course I've now branded myself as a Linux expert here 8-)
>
>> >And yes, I do consider source code to be possible documentation for a
>> >piece of software, just as I consider a schematic to be possible
>> >documentation for a piece of hardware.
>>
>> It's true that source code SHOULD be part of the documentation. In too
many
>> cases it's ALL the documentation, and though the code was modified, the
>> comments weren't kept in sync. That's where it's a real pain when they
>> leave out key words like NOT.
>
> I've worked at a company that discouraged comments in code because ``The
>code IS the documentation.'' And don't forget that programmers in general
>hate to document, you end up with crap like we have today (well, that and
>programmers can't program either, but that's a different rant ... )
>
> -spc (Programmer forced into sysadmin and hating every minute of it)
>
Received on Wed Mar 31 1999 - 22:04:28 BST