Floppyshop 2/Floppyshop - 2.zip/Floppyshop - 2.iso/diskmags/0022-3.564/dmg-0049/410.txt

Text File | 1997-04-16 | 21KB | 475 lines

Info-Atari16 Digest   Wednesday, August 23, 1989   Volume 89 : Issue 410

This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield

Today's Topics:

                           Re: Multitasking
                Re: PD lex & yacc for MS-DOS (and ST)
                           Re: Archive bit
                            Re: user base
          Msg for all who requested my Eternal-like RAM disk
                      Re: Software flow control?
                   Re: Contribution copyright query
                             I need stuff
                    Re: Atari GEM/VDI programming
                       Re: Apathy and Defeatism
                Post for an underprivaliged person...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 05:50:36 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!jove.cs.pdx.edu![e-mail]
 (Steve Kirkendall)
Subject: Re: Multitasking
To: [e-mail]

It's my turn to talk now.  I promise to try and say something original.

1) Why do I want multitasking? Well, mostly because it would make desk
accessories obsolete;  each DA could be replaced by an application program.
DAs use memory from the time the system is booted to the time it is rebooted.
This is bad.  You have to reboot the system to install a new DA.  This is bad.
DAs must be written and compiled differently than "regular" programs.  This is
bad. Presently we must worry about two kinds of programs ("*.ACC" and "*.PRG").
This is bad.  In fact, the only good thing about DAs is that you can run one
while you're in the middle of an application, and a REAL multitasking system
would give that ability to EVERY program.

Also, there are times when it is easier or more efficient to implement a single
application as a collection of tasks.  An example of this from UNIX is the
'cu' program, which is implemented as two processes: one to copy characters
from the keyboard to the modem, and one to copy characters from the modem to
the screen.  "Client/Server" systems (such as X-windows and certain database
packages) provide more examples.  The Minix kernel and AmigaDos are both
implemented as collections of tasks, because they are easier to maintain
that way.

2) One thing I wonder about, though:  what would multitasking TOS look like?
I mean "look" literally -- how would several GEM programs *share* the screen?
Currently, it seems that every GEM program expects to have exclusive control
of the screen.  Each handles its own refreshes, and has its own menu bar.
How does DRI's multitasking 80x86 version of GEM handle this?

3) Concerning the necessity of an MMU:  Obviously, an MMU is not *necessary*,
since Minix works.  Just as obviously, an MMU is *desirable* because it
limits the damage from a program on the rampage (pardon the pun), makes
debugging easier, eliminates the need for relocation, etc.  I want an MMU,
but I don't have one, and I'm not going to let that keep me from using
multitasking under Minix.

Even without an MMU, Minix-ST is fairly secure.  It traps stack overflow and
any attempt to dereference a NULL pointer.  It does NOT trap pointers that
overrun a buffer, but these are rare and typically occur only in the last
process that I have started (and hence in the process that resides in the
last portion of used memory) so no harm is done to other processes.
    -- Steve Kirkendall
          ...uunet!tektronix!psueea!jove!kirkenda
    or    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 16:21:41 GMT
From: asuvax!hrc!force![e-mail]  (Richard E. Covert)
Subject: Re: PD lex & yacc for MS-DOS (and ST)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
 (Moshe Braner) writes:
> Hi all.
>
> I sort of remember some versions of lex and yacc floating by
> in this group.  I am suddenly in need of lex and yacc for a
> project on MS-DOS.  Since the ST C compilers also use (or should
> use!) 16-bit ints, I would expect the same source to work for
> both.  So, where do I get the source?  ANd has anybody tried it
> on MS-DOS?  (I still have my ST, but am paid to do some things
> on messy-dos.  Please don't stone me, Atarians :-)
>
> - Moshe Braner

    I have the same need for lex and yacc but for a different reason. There
are many UNIX/C programs from the archives which require lex and/or yacc.
and so, there are hard to port without having lex and/or yacc on the ST.


so, are there any pd lex and yacc and awk which are fully compatible with the
UNIX originals??

richard (gtephx!covertr) covert

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 16:45:36 GMT
From: asuvax!hrc!force![e-mail]  (Richard E. Covert)
Subject: Re: Archive bit
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Townsend) writes:
>
> You have it backwards. In TOS 1.4, the bit is set when a file is created or
> modified. The backup program should clear it after backing up the file.
>
>
> -- John Townsend
>    Atari Corp.

    John, or Dan,
I guess the first program every one writes is Yet Another Backup (YAB tm of
CovertWares!!!). Anyway, I too am writing a very specific type of backup
 program.
I had planned to use the READ/WRITE-READ/ONLY flag as a kind of backup flag. A
un-backed up file would be RW but after I copy the file to floppy I would make
 it
RO. That is because I was under the impression that TOS 1.0 and TOS 1.2 don't
support a real backup bit. I have looked in my MWC manual (3.09) and there is
no indiciation of a backup bit. Bit 5 (0x20) according to MWC in Fattrib()
is "written and closed". I guess that could be used as a backup bit, but it
isn't visible to the desktop. I normally use UIS2, and READ ONLY flags are
shown with a check mark, so they become visible (at least with UIS2). That was
 the
major reason why I was planning to use the READ/WRITE flag as a backup flag.

Is there a better way??
richard (gtephx!covertr) covert

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 16:33:33 GMT
From: asuvax!hrc!force![e-mail]  (Richard E. Covert)
Subject: Re: user base
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark O'Bryan)
 writes:
>
> According to Sam Tramiel in a recent issue of STart magazine, there are
> almost 1.5 million worldwide, and almost 200,000 in the U.S.  I don't
> know how close "almost" means, but this is what he reported.
> --
> Mark T. O'Bryan                 Internet:  [e-mail]
> Western Michigan University
> Kalamazoo, MI  49008

    In the same interview ST said that the Stacy and the Portfolio would
be available by the end of June. But, good old Sam didn't say which June!!
And as this is the end of August already, Sam must have meant that they would
be out by 1990 or maybe 1991.

    So, I don't believe anything that the Tramiels @Atari say, either
publicly or privately. I think the Tramiels get a big kick out of announcing
vaporware!! My local Atari store has NO idea of when the new Atari hardware
will be available, but they don't expect to see anything before Christmas!!
And that includes TOS 1.4 as well!!

    So, I don't believe that Atari has sold 1.5 million STs world wide.
Unless you include those stripped down 520STs (you know 1/m of RAM, no monitor,
etc.) that Atari just tried (unsuccessfully) to dump through the Price Club
stores.

rec

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 21:58:35 SET
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Msg for all who requested my Eternal-like RAM disk

Hello all,

   ... this is for all the people who asked me to email them copies of my
Eternal-like Mega-proof RAM disk. (I was astonished: SEVEN people requesting
MY RAM disk :-).

   I am currently adding a few more features and will be posting the newest
version to this group sometime next week.  (For those of you who don't like
binaries here, remember than many people, including me, are on Bitnet only.
Also, the ARC is only about 2 KB).

   If you have asked me for a copy and don't see it in your usual Info-Atari16
distribution whithin the near future, please email me again.

   Until then, please be patient. (Remember TOS 1.4?  :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitnet:  VBRANDT@DBNUAMA1 (will go away late '89)      Volker A. Brandt
          UNM409@DBNRHRZ1 (soon)                       Angewandte Mathematik
UUCP:    ...!unido!DBNUAMA1.bitnet!vbrandt             (Bonn, West Germany)
ARPAnet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 17:30:26 GMT
From: asuvax!hrc!force![e-mail]  (Richard E. Covert)
Subject: Re: Software flow control?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Kwan) writes:
> Have plans to purchase an USR HST Dual Standard.  Question is whether the ST
> is up to it.  Does anyone know if the software flow control that I've seen
> floating around works or not?
>

    Ok Henry here goes. First, if you plan to buy a USR 9600 modem please
buy a new 9600 HST and not an older one. The new ones, direct from USR, will
go as high as 14,400 BPS, while modems more then 6 months old will go only
at 9600 bps. And you will want that extra speed!!! I have the 14400 model, and
I have downloaded files at 1650 CPS (over 100K per minute) using Zmodem and
FOREM ST .  So, be very careful about where you buy the USR modem. I got
mine direct from USR as a SYSOP (bbs operator) for $495 plus shipping.

    Another thing is flow control. What you need is RTS/CTS (hardware
flow control) and not XON/XOFF (software flow control). RTS is Ready To Set
and CTS is Clear To Send and are RS-232 signals between the modem and the ST's
serial port. Un fortuantely, while the signals are present, the TOS 1.0/1.2/1.4
software has bugs in the serial io drivers which prevents their real use. But,
 with
the new USR 9600/14400 modemd RTS/CTS are mandatory!! So, some guy wrote a
 program
called TURBOCTS which fixes the serial drivers in all version of TOS. Also, the
ROM version of TOS 1.4 (if and when it EVER appears) still has the bug in the
serial io driver. So, TOS 1.4 requires a patch program as well. But, Atari has
released a pathc program to TOS 1.4 ROMs (why they did since no one can legally
own TOS 1.4 yet is beyond me!!) which provides RTS/CTS support. I don't own
TOS 1.4 so I can't tell you if it works. There are 'fixed' version of TOS 1.4
EPROMs floating around which are NOT mods made, or endorsed, by Atari. The
'fixed' version of the TOS 1.4 EPROMs was done by some hacker up in Canada.
 Maybe
Atari Canada has released the TOS 1.4, who knows.

    Anyway, with TURBOCTS and the 9600/14400 I have been getting 1650 cps
downloads on my 3 year old 520ST!!!

and that's why I love my STs!! Even if Atari doesn't fix the bugs, there are
plenty of hackers out there to do it!!! Imagine that!!!

rec

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 22:10:15 SET
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Contribution copyright query

In Info-Atari16 Digest #387, otter![e-mail]  (Graham Higgins) says:

>Firstly, I won't be getting paid for the usenet articles in STWorld. Two
>factors operating here --- I wouldn't be adding anything of value, except
>a filtering function and discussions in news.admin convinced me that this
>wasn't enough to warrant payment --- and it would rather be an abuse ...
>the usenet feed provided by HP for business purposes.

Well, here in Germany there is at least one magazine that features some Usenet
info, usually slushed up with some general blurb by the columnist.  I don't
think he's doing it for free ...

>Thirdly, "editing" in this context would be providing some introductory
>commentary to a coherent notestring, or selecting the most pertinent
>contributions to a particular string. I would hesitate to edit directly
>the contributions. As Greg pointed out in his email response, it's difficult
>enough making oneself understood on the usenet without being misquoted or
>quoted out of context. Looks like maintaining the integrity of contributions
>is worth making a central objective.

This is indeed a difficult question.  The abovementioned column is usually only
a general summary, and two to three months late at that.  I guess that there
are technical reasons for this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitnet:  VBRANDT@DBNUAMA1 (will go away late '89)      Volker A. Brandt
          UNM409@DBNRHRZ1 (soon)                       Angewandte Mathematik
UUCP:    ...!unido!DBNUAMA1.bitnet!vbrandt             (Bonn, West Germany)
ARPAnet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 17:04:00 EDT
From: "SLAUGHTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: I need stuff
To: "info-atari16" <[e-mail]>

Hey there fellow atarians,
    I need a couple of utils for my ST, a de-Z'er and a de-shar'er.  I
found some source code archives, but alas, they have shar'ed and z'ed them,
thus making it diffecult to use the source code files.  Please send replies
directly to me as well as to the list, since I get the repost of
comp.sys.atari.st about a week late.

BTW, what is the status of comp.binaries.atari.st and comp.sources.atari.st, as
in where are they and can they be ftp'ed still?

**************************************************************************
*                        Look Ma, It's a signature!!!                    *
**************************************************************************
*     Bob Slaughter                         *  Model Railroading         *
*     InterNet:  [e-mail] *                            *
*     Bitnet:    Haldane@UFPine             *          is Fun!!          *

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 14:49:08 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!brspyr1![e-mail]  (Tim
 Northrup)
Subject: Re: Atari GEM/VDI programming
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Chris Parkin Lilley) writes:
>Can anyone recommend
>    a) a good introductory text on programming, particularly the serial
>         interface and the windowing features,
>
>    b) a good reference work for the same features

Compute! Publications has a 3 volume set available on programming the
Atari ST.  I think as a set they provide a pretty decent introduction
to using GEM/VDI/TOS on the ST.  The books are divided into VDI, AES
and TOS.  Each has a good index to all functions contained, with
descriptions of each in Assembler as well as the C binding.  The
official titles are something like:

    Atari ST Technical Reference: Volume 1 - VDI
    Atari ST Technical Reference: Volume 2 - AES
    Atari ST Technical Reference: Volume 3 - TOS

They cost about $25 each and can be orderd by calling 800-346-6767
(they will answer as "Chilton's", but they publish Compute! books now).

[ I have no connection with Compute! Publications, other than as a
  satisfied customer (did I really need to say that?) ]

                                -- Tim
--
Tim Northrup                +------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------+         GEnie:  T.Northrup               |
UUCP: uunet!crdgw1!brspyr1!tim    |   Air Warrior:  "Duke"                   |
ARPA: [e-mail]      +------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 21:42:21 GMT
From: uc!nic.MR.NET!ns![e-mail]  (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Apathy and Defeatism
To: [e-mail]

<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Marshall Lake) writes:
> >Atari is also number 91 as far as all US companies involved in electronic
> >equipment manufacture (not just computers!)  Atari is a relatively large
> >(net income wise) company.
>
> Aren't these statistics more than a year old?  I had thought they weren't
> true any longer.

The 91 ranking is for calender/fiscal year 1988, so they are about 8 months
old.  The 91 figure appeared in the July 24, 1989 issue of Electronic Business
magazine, where they rated the top 200 electronics companies.

In 1987, Atari's ranking was 82 (ranked according to electronics revenues.)

(By the way, I don't think you can conclude anything from that apparent slip
in ranking -- since it might be entirely due to other companies growing faster,
rather than Atari shrinking.)


Electronic Business also rated Atari:

Third (microcomputer manufactoring) behind Apple and Compaq in revenue per
employee.

Second (against all 200) in return on equity.

Seventh (against all 200) in return on investment.

And fourth (against all 200) in the ratio of foreign versus total revenue
(so surprise here.)

--
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- [e-mail] / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / [e-mail] -

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89 19:57:26 GMT
From: uc!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu![e-mail]  (Craig
 D. Rice, St. Olaf College)
Subject: Post for an underprivaliged person...
To: [e-mail]

 Mr Seebach: If you could post this on comp.sys.atari.st for me I would
 greatly appreciate it. Once again, this does not need to be anonymous.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 quoted from jward's message on comp.sys.atari.st:

 >I am coming into a bit of money and am thinking about upgrading my ST
 >520 FM.  I currently have two single sided drives and 512K.  I'd like
 >to have a little Unix style system on my hands.  I've dabbled with OSK
 >and am a rabid Unix fan so I know and use multitasking daily.  Here's
 >what I'd like to know:

 >What multitasking kernels are available and how good are they?  I use
 >gulam unless I have to resort to GEM and I've heard that MX2 and Gulam
 >work together?  I tried MX2 to no avail once, is it better?

 >How stable/good is Minix?  Does GNU stuff work under it at all?

 >I have a friend who is a Unix system administrator and has OSK with a
 >hard drive and he says that I am such a rabid Unixer that I would not
 >be satisfied with OSK.  What do you think?  Is OSK a reasonable
 >alternative?

 >RAM upgrades?  I am not a hardware techie, so should I get the
 >solderless variety?  Which one?

 >And at last, what about a hard-drive?  Which one should I get?

 >Let me know, eh?

 >James E. Ward
 >[e-mail]        Use this address or bounce!

 This is my first message on this message base. By the way, messages take
 a week to get to this site, so if someone posted answers to this question
 in the last week, please be tolerant of me.

 Hi everyone!

 I am interested in doing more-or-less the same thing. I have a 1040st
 with an exernal 3.5" drive. I am waiting for the new 68030 atari computer
 to be released (last time I checked they were calling it a TT).

 A 68000 is fundamentally not meant to do multitasking. I am one of those
 power users you hear about. I am using an XT at work and hitting my head
 on the keyboard, for I could utilize about 4 of them without any of them
 waiting for keyboard input (lots of number crunching involved in this job).

 That is why I have been eagerly waiting for the release of the TT. Does
 anyone have some recent info about it? (such as, is it still planned for
 a september relase? how much will it run for? how much will unix cost for it,
 and where can I get software for the TT version of unix, etc etc).

 Also, I know PC-Ditto II, if it has finally been released, is still in its
 early stages, but will there be any problems hooking it up to a TT? Will it
 still run at the same speed as if it were on an ST? Or will there be a
 special version for the TT?

 PS: To Greg Lindahl: Hi Greg! Small world, isn't it?



--
---------------------------------S. Alan Ezust-------------------------------
|        "Depeche Modem"       \ Disclaimer: I frequently make stupid typos.|
|  [e-mail] / The probability of forgetting something is |
|   McGill Univeristy CompSci  \ directly proportional to.... to.... uh.... |
|   Montreal, Quebec, Canada   / If it jams, force it. If it breaks, fine.  |

------------------------------

End of Info-Atari16 Digest
**************************
-------

ə