At 12:37 PM 1/3/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>> >> A LINC!!???!?!?!
>> >
>> >Wirehead - Anthony Clifton
>> >
>> >PS: Notice I haven't WHERE I'm getting the stuff from. I'll just keep
>> >THAT little secret until they're safely in my basement. ;-D
>> >
>> >
>> That's even better, that way it will be all packed and ready. Just tell
>> us where your basement is :-)
>>
>Well you'd have to get past The Attack Cats of Lurking Evil, The Pet Rats
>of Flailing Vengence and The Death Bunny. After that you'd have to
>navigate the basement without having a giant bookshelf or computer topple
>over on you, crushing you. After that you'd have to carry the equipment
>upstairs avoiding the Doorknob of Bruised Hips, The Furniture of Hunger
>that feeds on unwary shins and finally Steps Into The Abyss at the front
>porch which never seem to be where you remembered them. =-)
No problem. Sounds just like my house only we have Killer Parakeets as
well!
>
>Indiana Jones and the Computer Room of Doom
>
>Wirehead - Anthony Clifton
>
>
> As an example at home my primary machine is a Macintosh, I know that my
> Pentium running Linux is more stable, and runs a better OS. But I am far
> more productive on my Macintosh, and the Applications that I want to run
>are available on the Mac.
Which IS what I meant at the beginning that started this whole little
discussion! Linux is trying to compete with Windows 95 and MacOS, but is not
designed around getting documents typed, and stuff like that, so the average
user would be awfully unproductive, and the "power user" would spend years
tweaking their shell script and recompiling the kernel to run vi perfectly,
which can't even do fonts!
i picked this machine up for free: here's what i got.
the H89A in good condition. possible power problem. clean, and in great
cosmetic shape. even got the original dust cover for it!
external 5.25 floppy drive.
about 50 disks with cpm, wordstar, dbase, and several other apps.
the best part is the extensive documentation. i have *ALL* the construction
manuals,schematics, bios listings, software reference guides, and original
disks in their packaging. even had some 8 inch cpm disks included!
the person that gave me this machine wants to join the list. if someone can
email me directly with what i need to tell him to subscribe, let me know
please.
david
> a)I am curious to know what that sed command line _was_
cat filename | sed s/"text to replace"/"replacement text"/g > outfile
You can also do
sed s/"text to replace"/"replacement text"/g < infile > outfile
In my case it was under 40 characters to replace every instance of 1995 with
1997 in a 25mb file.
> b)I appreciate Linux's usefulness for networks (I did mention TCP/IP stacks,
> remember :), but I see no use in it for anything else. i.e. stuff like word
> processing. Since that is the most common computer function today, I would
> think Linux would have some utility for it, but all there is is stuff like vi
> and EMACS. Why can't Linux folks settle with some MS Word-style program?
>
First, I don't consider word processing to be a meaningful test of an OS's
usefulness. Word processing is probably the most wasteful way ever
invented to use personal computers. Sure it's easy but I can word
process just as quickly and easily on my old Mac SE as I can on a new 95
box.
Second, there are applications...I believe WordPerfect is available for
Linux as well as many other WSIWYG programs. I don't use them on my
Linux box because I prefer to have it do useful things.
Third, I think you need to pick up a copy of Linux Journal as it has
listings for commercial software etc.
Fourth, let's not underestimate the value of what you call 'TCP/IP Stack'
operations. We're not talking about a replacement for Trumpet Winsock
here...we're talking about being able to do EVERYTHING that thousands of
dollars worth of commercial software can do, do it better and
FASTER...for FREE. The financial value of that alone is incalculable
when you realize how much of the Internet simply would not have been
implemented had it not been for Linux (and other free unix-based OSs).
> But wait! I DID try installing a small text editor to run under X. It needed
> MOTIF, but said it would run with LessTIF. So, I copy over LessTIF and it
> doesn't compile. Neither does the little notepad program, for that matter.
All of this software you mention, or equivalents, is readily available on
sunsite.unc.edu or other Linux archives in binary form.
> That was the end of my last try at Linux, a few months ago. I have a Slackware
> Linux CD with Kernels up to 1.3.12. I now have T-1 access, though, so if you
> can suggest a system which COULD BE A VIABLE REPLACEMENT FOR MacOS OR WINDOWS,
Linux isn't a replacement for MacOS or Windows...it goes FAR BEYOND the
capabilities of either. Certainly you can use it for word processing,
using the WordPerfect etc mentioned above, but Linux boxes are serious
business machines that can represent thousands of dollars in revenues to
a business that uses it.
It's like saying a Cray could never be useful because you can't run
Microsoft Word on it. I don't think it's reasonable to make Word the
be-all end-all basis for judging a machine.
Keep in mind that there's a trade-off between flexibility and
ease-of-use. Linux will never be as easy to install as Windows 95. It
isn't intended for that purpose. It's far too powerful and flexible for
that and assumes that the user wants to go beyond mere word processing.
Anthony Clifton - Wirehead
> Which brings up an interesting point: Why do the self appointed software
> cops go after software archives of "abandonware" that most of today's
> computers usually run too fast anyway? Do these ancient games really hurt
> todays software market? Anything 10 years old or older should be
> freeware/public domain as far as games are concerned. They don't increase
> productivity, and the collectors of these old games aren't doing any harm
> are they?
Well, frogger is a good example of why not. I see they're bringing it out
again.
Copyrights are what? 37 years? As someone who produces intellectual
property (Photos and -- occasionally -- software), I appreciate copyright
protection.
Can't tell you why the self appointed software cops go after 'em...maybe
because they're easy?
manney
Normally I wouldn't do something like this, but I suspect I'm not the only
one that will find this of interest. I'm posting some of the data because
the web page is almost impossibly slow!
Well looking for new Amiga web pages I found a most interesting Web page
about the "Catweasel Advanced Floppy Controller". It can be found at
http://www.rat.de/apd/catweasl.htm basically there are two flavors, one for
a standard IBM PC, and one for the Amiga. Since it's primarily for use
with the Amiga the Amiga version is more advanced, but even the PC version
is most interesting.
I've seen these for sale by some of the Amiga companies, but I didn't
realise the wide variety of formats supported. Now I'm seriously thinking
about getting one for my PC and one for my Amiga!
Zane
Here is a list of the formats the Web page lists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Catweasel uses standard 3.5inch and 5.25 inch floppy drives and reads
the following formats:
These File-systems are supported:
- CBM 1541 (DOS 2A)
- CBM 1571 (DOS 2A), single-sided & double-sided
- Amiga OFS
- Amiga OFS localised
- Amiga FFS
- Amiga FFS localised
- PC FAT12
- PC FAT16
- PC VFAT12
- PC VFAT16
via disk-image file (and therefore also sector by sector)
- CBM 1541, 5.25" single-sided 170 KB
- CBM 1571, 5.25" single-sided 170 KB
- CBM 1571, 5.25" double-sided 341 KB
- CBM 1581, 3.5" double-sided 800 KB
- Amiga, 3.5", double-sided 880 KB
- Amiga, 3.5", double-sided 1760 KB
- Amiga, 5.25", double-sided 880 KB
- Amiga, 5.25", double-sided 1760 KB
- Atari ST, 3.5", double-sided 720 KB
- Atari ST, 3.5", double-sided 800 KB
- Atari ST, 3.5", double-sided 1440 KB
- IBM PC, 3.5", double-sided 720 KB
- IBM PC, 3.5", double-sided 1440 KB
- IBM PC, 5.25", double-sided 360 KB
- IBM PC, 5.25", double-sided 720 KB
- IBM PC, 5.25", double-sided 800 KB
- IBM PC, 5.25", double-sided 1200 KB
- Catweasel-Extra, 3.5", double-sided 1160 KB
- Catweasel-Extra, 3.5", double-sided 2380 KB
- Apple Macintosh, 3.5", single-sided 400 KB
- Apple Macintosh, 3.5", double-sided 720 KB
- Apple Macintosh, 3.5", double-sided 800 KB
- Apple Macintosh, 3.5", double-sided 1440 KB
- Apple IIe, 5.25", single-sided 140 KB
(sector access only) Sinclair QL
(soon:) Atari 800XL (amiga catweasel can, read-only in the moment)
(not yet) Armstrad 3" (please send us a drive and some floppies)
(not yet) 8 inch Floppy (please send us a drive and floppies)
(not yet) Any other Shugart floppy (please send us a drive and floppies)
Currently only the Amiga version can write (most of them) to disk. The
PC-ISA Catweasel will be able to write in the future... only a software
update
is needed!! It won't be too long now! The software for the PC-ISA Version
can handle 4 controllers (8 Floppy Drives!) and uses no DMA and no
IRQ!
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)ix.netcom.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
| For the collecting of Classic Computers with info on them. |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/museum.html |
> While we're on the subject, I'll throw in my gripe. Why can't we
copy
> old computer manuals? Most of the computers and software are worthless
> with the manuals. HP and the other companies gave up all
> sales/support/service of these things years ago, why should they care if
> we copy manuals that they don't sell any more?
I'll agree there. Manuals' copyrights should expire after the software is
no longer supported.
manney
> Actually, It took a few minutes for works even to start up! We were
editing
> one-page documents. The Leading Edge Model D I have had two experiences
with.
> In one case it was ENIAC-speed (clock? oh, yeah, it's 3:30!) and the
other it
> was 286-speed.
It should _fly_ on a 286. Were you running off the world's slowest HDD?
(Actually, this is probably moot. As I understand you, the compooter isn't
around anymore?) Anyway, mine's pretty quick.
> This works 2.0 is best example of user interface without interrupting
> your train of thought and look as you go...And no playing games of
> guessing buried in GUI menus, waiting for fancy features to load in
> on demand.
...except that it doesn't work _exactly_ as the Win keystrokes do (I don't
remember just what).
> And keep that hands on that keyboard is BIG plus
> especially without fuction keys and mouse.
Yeah, I like that, too. The only time I use a mouse (mostly) is in drawing
programs and #@$#%$ MS Schedule Plus, with which I have to use the mouse to
dial a number. Stupid!
> And another good example
> was News Xpress had same user interface but the next version totally
> lost it, using windows crap. :( That is one another big reason I'm
> looking at linux ongoing basis.
I have MSW 2 on my laptop, as I'm developing a spreadsheet app for a
customer (old church with a non-Windows 386). It's legal to load multiple
versions if you own the program.
manney
At the risk of asking a loaded question...
Thanks to Jim Willing, I've become the proud(?) owner of my first
DECStation 3100. As a RISC box, I'm given to understand it will only run
Ultrix and NetBSD (is there a Linux port for it?)
With that in mind... does anyone happen to have:
* An Ultrix 4.3/RISC or higher CD that they can loan me long enough to
install?
* Suggestions for where to obtain NetBSD on bootable CD-ROM?
* A guide for creating a bootable CD-ROM using NetBSD files downloaded
>from the 'net? (I have a Yamaha CD writer).
Thanks in advance. Thanks again to Jim. ;-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Sysop, The Dragon's Cave BBS (Fidonet 1:343/272)
(Hamateur: WD6EOS) (E-mail: kyrrin2(a)wizards.net)
http://www.wizards.net/technoid
"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our own
human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
