From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Subject: Re: linux Date: 1 Mar 1992 21:34:22 GMT
In article <1992Feb29.202713.7994@klaava.Helsinki.FI> torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) writes:
>I changed the flollow-up: to alt.os.linux - I guess most coherent users
>aren't that interested (and if they are, they can always try to read
>a.o.l).
I threw comp.os.coherent back on the newsgroups line as some Coherent people
might be interested in the discussion. :-)
Some sites don't get alt.os.linux, because they don't get alt.
>In article <1992Feb29.144603.9630@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
(Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>> > [ bash under linux ]
>>What I fail to see is why would someone even go through the effort of writing
>>150k worth of code when they could have done the same thing in five times less
>>space! Could there possibly be some hidden joy in unnecessarily bashing one's
>>head against the wall that I'm not privvy on?
>You are exaggerating a bit here: yes, bash is 5 times the size of the
>bourne shell, but isn't exactly a re-implementation of it: bash does /a
>lot/ of things the standard shell doesn't.
>
>The joy of "bashing one's head against the wall" is in nice features
>like aliases, functions, cursor keys, job control (yes, linux has it,
>and bash supports it) etc - yes the binary gets a lot bigger, but it's a
>real pleasure to use compared to the ordinary shell. And yes, linux
>could have a simple /bin/sh and a more complex /usr/local/bin/bash, but
>with page sharing it's usually a waste of memory to have two programs
>that do the same thing.
>
>[ I did have the minix /bin/sh running under linux way back in version
> 0.01 (last august or so), but I quickly changed. Hands up everyone who
> doesn't like the lack of history in the bourne shell ]
I like bash. If I had to choose an interactive shell, it would be bash or
ksh. My feeling is that a UNIX system should have a minimal Bourne shell
equivalent include for the usual mundane task of executing scripts that are
associated with cron tasks, etc.
>>This problem, for which I've coined the term "Software Cancer" is pandemic
>>to all GNU software and too much other public domain software, [ some deleted ]
>
>GNU software is usually bigger than the "ordinary" one, and it does use
>more memory. But most people who use GNU software think that it's worth
>it: I know /I/ couldn't live without gcc (small exaggeration :). The
>reason is, I think, that people who write lots of code often do it on a
>big machine, so they have no reason to write the code to fit in a
>smaller one. It shows up more clearly in freely distributable code:
>proprietary programs have the constraint of trying to be sold, so they
>want to fit on every machine.
Yes. When I get Coherent 386, GCC will be the first thing that I port.
>> You
>>can always tell what is afflicted by Software Cancer by looking at the source.
>>In it is the symptom known as Comment Pollution: the result of the programmer
>>writing excessive and unnecessary verbosity describing the code that would have
>>been written in the first place had he or she been straightforward.
>
>You'd like the linux kernel sources, I think: not many comments in
>sight.. The kernel itself is pretty small (currently 180kB binary, and
>that contains pageing, demand-loading, job control etc), but to get nice
>performance, you need a lot of buffer pages etc, so linux actually wants
>at least the lower 1 meg for kernel memory.
It will be interesting when someone gets a full newsfeed up and running
on Linux. Uses up memory like crazy.
>It's a case of "I want good performance, f**k the rest" :) I had minix
>before I started on linux, and I got /thoroughly/ disgusted with
>programs that fit in 64kB. I /want/ the added functionality bought at
>the expence of a meg or two.
So do I. I am trying to patiently wait for Coherent 386.
>>And as for Linux: I cannot see justifying the use of so much RAM as to make
>>running this system impossible on the vast majority of 386 systems without
>>the purchase of memory extensions. If I have to buy something, then I might
>>as well just go out and purchase a Coherent instead.
>
>Well, I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Finland at
>least, 4M is about minimum configuration for a 386. And that's one of
>the cheap taiwanese clones (I should know - that's what I bought, even
>though I upgraded to 8M later). Having a 386 but not enough memory
>seems a bit silly, I think. It seems most other software developers
>have the same idea: OS/2, windows NT etc all want a /lot/ more that just
>1M to run nicely.
>But yes: if you are cramped for memory, coherent is certainly the way to
>go - and likewise if you don't enjoy setting up and grappling with all
>the problems of a new operating system (and believe me: people do have
>problems with linux - it doesn't work on all machines, and setup can be
>a pain if you aren't used to things like that). But I'd also like to
>point out that for the price of coherent ($99?) you should have no
>problems finding someone willing to sell you 2M of more memory, and use
>linux happily (?) ever after.
I have 4 megs now, and I'm giving that a good workout. I think I'm going
to add another 16 meg.
>>Please, if you have a priority list, put these three things on the top of the
>>list:
>>
>> (1) rewrite the kernel so that RAM usage is cut under 500kB.
>
>Well, we have different priorities: I have a nice enough machine, and I
>want to get everything out of it. If that means I'll use bigger
>programs, so be it: I don't consider the extra megabytes needed that
>relevant. (and the source /is/ free, so somebody could rewrite it to
>just use the minimum memory available, but I'm not interested to do it
>myself).
>
>> (2) contact someone who's known for developing high quality
>> software tools (e.g. the producer of the Power Mix C compiler)
>> and see if they won't participate in the major contribution to your
>> public domain, with free software.
>
>Somehow I don't see commercial software houses rushing in to develop
>software for linux - but more importantly, I consider GNU software to be
>among the best around. Yes, it's big, but it certainly is nice to have
>around. Gcc-2.0 (already running under linux: in alpha-testing) has a
>cc1-binary of about 800kB (so with make, gcc and cc1 all in memory at
>once, you easily fill up >>1MB), but the code produced is well worth it.
>I guess this comes as a shock to people using a compiler that fits in
>64kB, but it's nice to have a development system that /really/ does a
>good job.
>
>> (3) write some good documentation in the implementation of Linux, as
>> the written word of a designer's intent has value to a software
>> developer far in excess to any value the source itself may have.
>
>Yes: a valid point. I hate writing docs, and as this has been purely a
>hacker project for my own enjoyment (started last april, and it's
>finally getting useable indeed), I haven't written more than the
>/absolute/ minimum required (and some people seem to think I didn't
>write even that much :). Even the FAQ and the info-sheet were written
>by others, I'm happy to say.
You do need some reasonable docs.
--Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP