🚀 go-pugleaf

I think I set mine when I build the kernel. Maybe there are other ways to do so
but I maybe unaware of.

  -anil

In article <24325@princeton.Princeton.EDU> you write:
>The subject line says it.  All help appreciated.  Please post rather
>than sending email.
>
Can you say "kernal rebuild"?  I went through this already.  You must
go into the system configuration files, reset the time zone variable,
then rebuild the kernal.

If you don't mind resetting the zone each time you boot, I am including a
piece of code that will reset it for you.

Hope this helps.

J. Nelson Howell
System Programmer				nelson@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu
Krannert Graduate School of Management		NELSON@PURCCVM.BITNET
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

------ cut here ------
/*
 * settz.c - reset the time zone to local conditions
 *
 * Author: J. Nelson Howell	88/11/09
 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/time.h>

/* globals */
struct timeval t;
struct timezone tz;
int zoneoffset[5] = {300,300,360,420,480};	/* US continental time zones */
int dsttype[5] = {0,1,1,1,1};			/* DST correction flag */
char *czones[5] = {"est","edt","cdt","mdt","pdt"};
enum {EST,EDT,CDT,MDT,PDT};			/* US continental time zones */

main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char **argv;
{
	int localzone;

	if(--argc == 0) {
		/* give some help */
		usage();
		exit(0);
	}

	argv++;
	if(!strcmp(*argv,"show")) {
		/* inform the user of the current time and zone info */
		showzone();
		exit(0);
	}

	if(!strcmp(*argv,"set")) {
		argv++;
		argc--;
		if(!argc) {
			usage();
			exit(-1);
		}

		for(localzone=EST;localzone<=PDT;localzone++) {
			if(strcmp(*argv,czones[localzone])) {
				if(localzone == PDT) {
					badzone(*argv);
				}
				else {
					continue;
				}
			}
			else {			/* got a correct timezone */
				break;
			}
		}

		/* get the current system time */
		gettimeofday(&t,&tz);
		tz.tz_minuteswest = zoneoffset[localzone];
		tz.tz_dsttime = dsttype[localzone];
		if(settimeofday(&t,&tz)) {
			printf("time zone can only be set by super-user\n");
			exit(-1);
		}
		else {
			showzone();
			exit(0);
		}
	}
	else {
		usage();
		exit(-1);
	}
}

showzone()
/* display the current time and zone structures */
{
	gettimeofday(&t,&tz);
	printf("seconds since 1/1/1970: %ld\n",t.tv_sec);
	printf("usecs                 : %ld\n",t.tv_usec);
	printf("minutes west of GMT   : %d\n",tz.tz_minuteswest);
	printf("DST correction code   : %d\n",tz.tz_dsttime);
}

usage()
/* display usage syntax */
{
	printf("settz {show|set <zone>}\n");
	printf("\tvalid zones are: EST\n");
	printf("\t                 EDT\n");
	printf("\t                 CDT\n");
	printf("\t                 MDT\n");
	printf("\t                 PDT\n");
	printf("EST does not change to daylight savings time\n\n");
}

badzone(zone)
char *zone;
/* inform the user that a bad zone has been supplied */
{
	printf("%s is not a valid zone\n\n",zone);
	usage();
	exit(-1);
}
------ cut here ------

Yes, but has anybody actually PLAYED with these things?  I attended the 
Philadelphia unveiling and got to try out a 320, a 530, and an X terminal.

All three of them exhibited X performance that ranged from mediocre to 
sluglike, depending on the operation.

In particular NONE of the three beasties could move bits to/from the screen
quickly enough.  (as in, displaying/refreshing an image, and scrolling a
region)

The scrolling was particularly bad, mainly because it's the thing you're
most likely to be using.  I was unable to scroll an 80x24 xterm (say a
resolution of approx 600x350 (or so)) at much better than 2-3 lines per second.

This is right up there with a color Sun running the original cfb code from
X11R1...

While I can think of a host of reasons why it might be slow on the 320 and
the 530 (lots of annoying background jobs, or something), the Xterminal was
just as slow.  I killed all other clients that were going to the Xterm, and
it STILL couldn't scroll the screen at an acceptable rate, making me think the
thing is utterly useless.

Anyhow, I can't imagine HOW IBM could make the X server SO slow.  The X11R4
server for my RT 125 Megapel is MUCH faster...

Or, perhaps the machines here were set up by complete bozos...

John Bradley  -  University of Pennsylvania  -  GRASP Lab

In article <20635@netnews.upenn.edu> bradley@grip.cis.upenn.edu (John Bradley) writes:
>Yes, but has anybody actually PLAYED with these things?  I attended the 
>Philadelphia unveiling and got to try out a 320, a 530, and an X terminal.

(This was on the smallest deskside unit, with 40Mb of ram.)

First off, at the Houston show, nobody was allowed to *touch* the
things, much less get at the keyboard.

Monday, we (some folks at UH) went over to IBM to actually get a personal
demo.  They were rather upset that we had a 1/4" tape with source, ready
to try out.

emacs wouldn't compile. :-) The C compiler was barfing on stray interrupts
and never got through a single .c file, so it had little to do with
bad karma from compiling RMS code on an IBM. :-P

(We couldn't run the X terminal and the console in X at the same time,
because some IBM person didn't allocate enough pty's... :-)

The fortran compiler didn't have the normal unix f77 libs -- all we
wanted was dtime() so that our benchmarking programs would work.

After some quick mucking around on a vt100 clone (the big monitors *still*
aren't in whatever AIX uses for a termcap, so vi is useless from a non-X
or non-dumb terminal environ), we hacked our .f code to not call dtime.
Instead, we used /bin/time and did single runs.

We saw between 5 and 5.2 MFLOPS doing fluid dynamics code (gaussian
elimination, matrix multiplies, big data sets, etc); and about 1/4 - 1/5
the speed of an ETA-10P on some code written for the Cray and ETA.
(Sorry, we don't know what the MFLOPS on our ETA code is, the
ETA is our benchmark for that code. :-)

Oh well.  Maybe the code IBM ships will be in better condition.
--
J. Eric Townsend
University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu
Skate UNIX(tm).

In article <20635@netnews.upenn.edu> bradley@grip.cis.upenn.edu (John Bradley) writes:

John> Yes, but has anybody actually PLAYED with these things?  I attended the 
John> Philadelphia unveiling and got to try out a 320, a 530, and an X terminal.

Yes.  We have one here in the Computer Science Department.

John> All three of them exhibited X performance that ranged from mediocre to 
John> sluglike, depending on the operation.

What IBM told us when we complained about the performance of the X software
was that there is a large amount of debugging code that is still in place
but will be removed by the time the product really ships.  Wink, wink,
nudge, nudge. ;-)

John> In particular NONE of the three beasties could move bits to/from the screen
John> quickly enough.  (as in, displaying/refreshing an image, and scrolling a
John> region)

Actually we can make the X server crash on demand my moving the mouse
quickly while keying the buttons in rapid succession.

John> The scrolling was particularly bad, mainly because it's the thing you're
John> most likely to be using.  I was unable to scroll an 80x24 xterm (say a
John> resolution of approx 600x350 (or so)) at much better than 2-3 lines per second.

John> This is right up there with a color Sun running the original cfb code from
John> X11R1...

John> While I can think of a host of reasons why it might be slow on the 320 and
John> the 530 (lots of annoying background jobs, or something), the Xterminal was
John> just as slow.  I killed all other clients that were going to the Xterm, and
John> it STILL couldn't scroll the screen at an acceptable rate, making me think the
John> thing is utterly useless.

Not to mention exspensive.  The ~$US 2K price IBM is touting is without a
monitor!

John> Anyhow, I can't imagine HOW IBM could make the X server SO slow.  The X11R4
John> server for my RT 125 Megapel is MUCH faster...

It is all that debugging code. ;-)

John> Or, perhaps the machines here were set up by complete bozos...

John> John Bradley  -  University of Pennsylvania  -  GRASP Lab
--
Dan Ehrlich <ehrlich@cs.psu.edu>
Voice: +1 814 863 1142	FAX: +1 814 865 3176

In article <1990Feb21.073230.11534@lavaca.uh.edu>, jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes:
> In article <20635@netnews.upenn.edu> bradley@grip.cis.upenn.edu (John Bradley) writes:
> >Yes, but has anybody actually PLAYED with these things?  I attended the 
> >Philadelphia unveiling and got to try out a 320, a 530, and an X terminal.
> 
> First off, at the Houston show, nobody was allowed to *touch* the
> things, much less get at the keyboard.

I got to touch one at the Houston announcement.  The Ingres guy let me play
around a bit.  Unfortunately, I crashed their system just doing some ls's and
cd's. :-(  They were rebooting for more than five minutes, but they weren't
particularly mad.  I really can't complain, since they told me this was an
alpha release of AIX 3.0 and an alpha release of Ingress.

But here was the _bizarre_ part.  I caught the tail end of the technical
announcement in a large auditorium, spent some time in the demo room, and
then went looking for the next announcement cycle, pitched for "commercial"
customers.  I tried to get in one of the closed doors, but an IBM lady said
"You can't go in there because of the lights."  I start to open another door,
but some really weird sounds are coming from inside.  The room is pitch
black, rock music is blaring, people are packed standing room only, a smoke
machine is pumping out clouds over the audience, and there is some laser
light show being displayed on the front curtains.  As a guy next to me said,
"I don't know whether to sit down or ask someone to dance!" I was repelled
by this show and left without even waiting for the presentation.  I was told
this show lasted something like ten minutes.  Sorry, I came in the middle of
a work day to get product information, not to waste time at some mobile
disco.  This was the most unprofessional display I have ever experienced
from IBM.  Did IBM inflict this dog and pony show on the entire country, or
were we in Houston just "lucky?"

But the machines themselves seem quite impressive at first look.

-- 
A. Lester Buck     buck@siswat.lonestar.org  ...!texbell!moray!siswat!buck

In article <504@siswat.UUCP> buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes:
>"You can't go in there because of the lights."  I start to open another door,
>but some really weird sounds are coming from inside.  The room is pitch
>black, rock music is blaring, people are packed standing room only, a smoke
>machine is pumping out clouds over the audience, and there is some laser
>light show being displayed on the front curtains.  As a guy next to me said,
>"I don't know whether to sit down or ask someone to dance!" I was repelled
>by this show and left without even waiting for the presentation.  I was told
>this show lasted something like ten minutes.  Sorry, I came in the middle of
>a work day to get product information, not to waste time at some mobile
>disco.  This was the most unprofessional display I have ever experienced
>from IBM.  Did IBM inflict this dog and pony show on the entire country, or
>were we in Houston just "lucky?"


They did this in the morning as well, but with no smoke.

I didn't mind too much, except the music was *horribly* produced.
Cuts were not on time, beats were wrong, and levels were off in who
knows where.  The "laser show" consisted of a few squiggles on a
screen.  It was far to dark for us to eat the free lunches for which IBM
must have paid at least least $1.50 apiece.

Oh well.  I was amused, but that was about it.

--
J. Eric Townsend
University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu
Skate UNIX(tm).

bradley@grip.cis.upenn.edu (John Bradley) writes:

>Yes, but has anybody actually PLAYED with these things?  I attended the 
>Philadelphia unveiling and got to try out a 320, a 530, and an X terminal.

I tried the 320 and the X terminal.

>All three of them exhibited X performance that ranged from mediocre to 
>sluglike, depending on the operation.

I agree, plus that the server on the 320 has some ugly bugs (some pull
down menus left holes, lines seem to disappear) and the X terminal lies about
it display density (which makes an application that scales itself unusable).

[...]
>John Bradley  -  University of Pennsylvania  -  GRASP Lab

I don't understand that a machine that powerful (it *really* is fast in
compiling etc.) can be that slow when running X.
-- 
"Some call me Jaaper"				+--------------------------+
						| The Jonathan Corporation |
	Internet : neptune!jaap@uunet.uu.net	| Norfolk, Virginia	   |
	Uucp	 : ...uunet!neptune!jaap	+--------------------------+

my understanding is that the demo software reflects the state of
development as of sept/oct.  there should be a new release in a
couple of weeks.  and the actual delivered software (june?) will
reflect the state of development six weeks before release.  hopefully
there will be major improvements, but i suspect tuning will take
awhile.  

question:
i see a list price of $7,475 for a bare bones system 320 without
any graphics card or monitor.  anyone know what would be the
appropriate low end crt that could be attached? would standard
MCA boards for the ps2 series be compatible?