|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 270 responses total. |
adbarr
|
|
response 25 of 270:
| 
Apr 7 10:10 UTC 1995 |
Thank you scg and popcorn! Very tricky - Message Of The Day - M O T D,
I think I understand now. <open palm slaps head>.
|
davel
|
|
response 26 of 270:
|
Apr 7 11:57 UTC 1995 |
Why beat on yourself for not knowing this? It's a Unixism, pretty well-known
among people who have to deal with Unixisms at all, but not in itself at
all obvious.
Actually, I think this particular system supports multiple MOTDs, and we
have some that are automatically generated - like the net-link-down message
& (at least formerly) some disk-space warnings. (I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong.) (The reason for mentioning this is that using
cat to look at /etc/motd will only find the main one.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 27 of 270:
|
Apr 7 16:10 UTC 1995 |
Right -- there are multiple motd files that are displayed when you
log in.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 28 of 270:
|
Apr 7 17:38 UTC 1995 |
Thanks davel and remmers - verrry interesting! One more little question
-- what is cat short for? Perhaps you could suggest a good
Unix reference? Thanks.
|
steve
|
|
response 29 of 270:
|
Apr 7 17:55 UTC 1995 |
cat stands for concatenate, like to concatenate data to stdout.
stdout stands for standard output, which is by default your tty.
tty stands for "teletype", which is your terminal.
Ain't UNIX neat?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 30 of 270:
|
Apr 7 18:39 UTC 1995 |
Re #21: popcorn -- as of the time I logged in (~1pm CDT) the warning
in the motd still just said "Please...." with no expl.
|
robh
|
|
response 31 of 270:
|
Apr 7 22:52 UTC 1995 |
Re 29 - I've always thought about compiling the origins of all
the various Unix terms into a compendium, a sort of etymology
of Unix. There are so many diverse sources for these things...
|
steve
|
|
response 32 of 270:
|
Apr 8 01:40 UTC 1995 |
An excellent idea.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 33 of 270:
|
Apr 8 03:39 UTC 1995 |
Done properly, you could perhaps get it published !!!
|
gregc
|
|
response 34 of 270:
|
Apr 8 05:36 UTC 1995 |
Robh, it's already been done. Have you ever heard of "The Jargon File"?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 35 of 270:
|
Apr 8 10:35 UTC 1995 |
Ok, gregc, I'll bite. No, have not heard of this file (The Jargon
File). Where might one find this particular animal? And, thanks
STeve, for the further explanations and definitions. One additional
question - if I may? I understand there are *many* versions
of Unix (derived from "Berkeley Unix [U of Calif. at]. Does it
make any difference (for a layperson) which one to study and
learn about? To be more direct - which version of Unix would
be good to learn for an overall view? Thanks.
|
robh
|
|
response 36 of 270:
|
Apr 8 11:38 UTC 1995 |
Re 34 - No, I haven't, or I wouldn't have thought about compiling
one. >8) Is it a book, or is it literally a file?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 37 of 270:
|
Apr 8 12:24 UTC 1995 |
Re 30: Yup. I originally put in the longer version of the "please change
your password" message. Someone else cut it down. I'm hesitant to
lengthen it again, since whoever cut it down must have had a reason for it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 270:
|
Apr 8 14:09 UTC 1995 |
Re #35: There are more similarities between the various versions of
Unix than there are differences. The vast majority of commands are
available on all Unix systems and do the same things on all. The
distinctions are visible mainly to people who work at the programming
or system administration level, and are mainly differences of detail
regarding how the system accomplishes certain functions.
So, the version simply isn't an issue for the beginner. Pick up any
introductory book on using Unix -- some books are better than others of
course -- 99% or so of the information in it is generic and applicable
to any modern version of Unix.
|
janc
|
|
response 39 of 270:
|
Apr 8 18:15 UTC 1995 |
And as far a the novice need be concerned, there really are only two versions:
Berkeley Unix and System V Unix. Grex and M-Net and most of the computers
used by Universities use Berkeley. But bottom line is that normal users
will notice only minor differences.
|
remmers
|
|
response 40 of 270:
|
Apr 8 21:14 UTC 1995 |
Even that discussion is blurred nowadays by the fact that Berkeley-based
systems include many System-Visms and vice versa. Typically you can
find both the "sh" shell (System V) or a look-alike of it, and the
"csh" shell (Berkeley) or a look-alike, on one and the same system.
|
mdw
|
|
response 41 of 270:
|
Apr 9 00:16 UTC 1995 |
Berkeley systems have always had /bin/sh - that's just the bourne shell,
and has existed since at least version 7 unix. The system V version of
/bin/sh includes shell functions and some other minor enhancements - but
so do many recent berkeley systems. Sun, today, is pushing Solaris
instead of SunOS. Solaris is system V r 4, but it includes virtually
all of the functionality of berkeley. It's entirely possible grex could
be running solaris, but probably not in the near future. The reason to
run Solaris would be support for 32-bit UID's, and good multiple
processor support. The reasons not to include significantly less
stable, and we don't have the hardware or user base that these are
issues for us, today. 5 or 10 years down the line, those could be
issues.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 42 of 270:
|
Apr 9 08:56 UTC 1995 |
In my experience, people switching between Berkeley and System V or vice
versa tend to run into a bazillion tiny irritating differences between the
system they're used to and the other one. Things are basically the same,
but just different enough to be annoying. The commands are mostly the
same, but some of the parameters are different. It upsets people.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 43 of 270:
|
Apr 9 22:03 UTC 1995 |
If y'all are planning a debate on Unix, plz start a new item. (pref. in
info or jellyware). Thank you.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 44 of 270:
|
Apr 10 03:44 UTC 1995 |
I think lilmo just politely kicked us out of the living room and our
cozy Unix discussion group had better put our shoes on and
adjourn to info or jellyware. Before we leave, thanks for the
hospitality, and the information. See you there.
|
nephi
|
|
response 45 of 270:
|
Apr 10 11:00 UTC 1995 |
Could someone please tell me what changes have been made to the
sendmail program here lately?
It seems to be delivering mail *much* more slowly lately.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 46 of 270:
|
Apr 10 12:06 UTC 1995 |
Instead of attempting to deliver mail instantly, it now puts it into
a queue. Then, every 7 minutes, it looks through the queue and delivers
whatever it can.
Probably the difference you're seeing is that the load averages are higher
lately. When the load average goes above (is it 20 now?), sendmail stops
delivering mail until the load average goes back down again.
You can find sendmail's current status by doing a "ps -auwxn | grep sendmail"
(which may take a while to run).
|
steve
|
|
response 47 of 270:
|
Apr 10 12:51 UTC 1995 |
Sendmail is one of these infinately confugurable programs that has
many options and ways to balance its load upon the system. When
sendmail was changed to run in the background, it seemed as if there
was less load upon the system, but we've definately seen cases where
the mail queue has piled up to several hundred pieces. There is a
new version of sendmail on the way (8.6.12), too. I don't think
there are any things in it other than some minor bug fixes.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 48 of 270:
|
Apr 10 18:22 UTC 1995 |
Could the "trigger load average" be made dependent on the size (or age) of
the mail queue?
|
mdw
|
|
response 49 of 270:
|
Apr 11 03:28 UTC 1995 |
I'd actually like to switch things back to the way they were. The
theory behind delaying the queuing run is to reduce system load, but I
think it actually only postpones it, and bunches it up in such a way
that it bangs on the net and makes lots of network lag every so often.
Of course, network lag does reduce system load, but I'm not at all sure
that's quite the mechanism we had in mind here...
|