test-drb April 2002

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

280 participants
1162 discussions

Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote: > Those are "nice" but not necessary. I'm happy with the M$ stuff that Bill > sent me years back. I'm apparently not on "the list" any longer and haven't Knowing Bill Gates does *not* make you cool in this crowd. ;) > I'm really not complaining at all. It was he who cast the first stone. I > just made the observation that thinking of UNIX as appropriate for the era is > totally off-base and the market has surely vindicated that view. UNIX may be > fine for some things, but not for personal computing. Wow, I guess I'd better run out and buy a Windows box. I wonder if there are any stores open this late. I sure hope so, because all of my UNIX boxes are probably about to stop performing all of my personal computing, and I still have a lot of stuff to do tonight. > Workstations are overrate, if you ask me, though they may have had their day. > Hardware dedicated to UNIX concepts is just no longer what's wanted. Say what Not for suits, no. But suits seldom know what's best for even themselves. You strike me as an intelligent person, which is why I'm surprised at your viewpoints. I'd think you'd be interested in more modern technology. To each his own, more power to you. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

22 years, 3 months

Network Hub selection help needed

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 21, 2:34, Chad Fernandez wrote: > I'm finally going to work on hooking up a home network, so I guess I > need a hub. What should I look for? I don't know much about networks > yet. I have potentially 7 computers that I'd like to have connected. > It'll need to be 10Base-T, but 100base-T may be involved too. I thought > I'd look for something on Ebay, hopefully, not too expensive. Maybe > something commercial grade, However. I thought about something from IBM > or 3Com, any suggestions?? What do you mean by "commercial grade"? The difference between upmarket devices and small SOHO devices is mostly that the ones used in larger commercial networks are managed devices. That means you can configure them remotely (with SNMP or a web interface), get statistics from them, etc. You really want a switch rather than a hub. Not many people are making hubs (repeaters) these days, even at the low end of the market. A switch will ultimately give better throughput, especially in a peer-to-peer network. Go for autosensing 10/100baseT. If you're going to spend any amount of money, you want to protect your investment by including 100baseT capability even if you don't need it right now. If you see a decent modern 3Com hub or switch, that's fine but most of the second-hand stuff I've seen is 10baseT only. I wouldn't bother looking for IBM. Baystack, 3Com, HP, Cisco are the ones you're likely to see. And Netgear, which is almost entirely unmanaged kit, but quite good quality. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

22 years, 3 months

Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 22, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote: > -spc (But I do want to say the PDP-8 was a 12 bit system for some reason ... ) For a very good reason...it *is*! ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

22 years, 3 months

Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote: > BTW, when the NEXT boxes first came out, we had a few of them sitting around > for people to look at and play with. I personally was not impressed. They > were EXTREMELY low on gigaflops per picobuck and, aside from the OS, I don't Compared to what? > The problem with these machines, as borne out by the market, is that they > weren't what the home user wanted. They weren't what I wanted either. I That's it, I've finally figured it out. You work for Microsoft's marketing department. How nice. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

22 years, 3 months

classiccmp-digest V1 #927

by mythtech＠mac.com

>> Will a Dayna EtherPrint-T work for connecting, say, a LocalTalk Mac into an >> EtherTalk network, or does it only work for printers? In other words, is it >> a true LocalTalk-to-EtherTalk bridge? > >I don't think the Mac supports encoding/decoding TCP/IP packets via >localtalk. From what I understand Ethertalk (what mac compatible >printers talk on ethernet) is essentially localtalk wrapped with an >ethernet packet. :-/ TCP/ip is a different protocol on the same >computer and that is only supported through PPP(remote access) and ethernet. These are actually two different things. 1: Localtalk bridged to EtherTalk (appletalk over ethernet). That is what the Dayna box does. It is good only for AppleTalk uses (file sharing, printer sharing...). 2: TCP/IP over Appletalk. That is known as MacIP. AppleTalk does not natively carry TCP/IP, so a localtalk to ethertalk bridge will not pass TCP/IP simply because TCP/IP can't exist on localtalk (well, I won't say can't, but isn't done with any native Apple hardware). However, you CAN use MacIP, which is Apple's answer to TCP/IP over Appletalk. That is TCP/IP wrapped in an AppleTalk packet. That will be passed by a Localtalk to Ethertalk bridge, simply because the bridge won't know it is not Appletalk. The problem you get into with MacIP is you need something to unwrap it on the other end and pass it to the internet (or whatever TCP/IP application you are using it for). MacIP doesn't work as straight TCP/IP. If you are looking to do localtalk with TCP/IP, a much better solution is to find an old 030 or better box with ethernet (LC2 or 3 works great), and run Sustainable Softworks' IPNetRouter. They have a MacIP router built into it. Then, run Apple's LaserWriter Bridge if you ALSO want to route straight Appletalk using the mac based bridge (IPNetRouter will only examine the MacIP portion, so it won't pass a regular appletalk connection for things like Appleshare, file sharing, and printer sharing, as a result you need Apple's free LaserWriter bridge, which the newest version (2.??) IIRC will bridge for a full appletalk network and not just printers). I would also guess that older versions of AppleShare Server might have a MacIP router built in. Apple must have offered a solution for it, I can't believe they would provide all the client end tools and not have some way of unwrapping it other than depending on a 3rd party program (which is the only app I have seen that does it, but I am sure there must be others). -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

22 years, 3 months

Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)conman.org> >> 8080/z80 and if it was DOS you could bet on 808x. Unix back then meant >> MIPS, VAX, PDP-11, SUN/sparc, 68000, Z8000, and a few dozen I likely missed. > > That doesn't make sense. UNIX you state as being easily ported, even >though as a kernel it has to hit the hardware pretty hard, yet you state >applications as not being portable at all, because of the underlying >hardware and processor (which the application shouldn't care about). If >anything, I would think the opposite would be true. You forget I guess. All cpus are from intel. At one time unix was on machines of different word size and instruction set. So an app while easily ported to a new platform, it was not without some problems. Like each version of unix was not always the same as another. Some of those were those little things like the apps programmer needed a target machine and OS to verify on. So "portable" is not the same as "ported to". > Now, speaking as a programmer who's done cross platform programs, I've >come to the conclusion that writing portable software isn't difficult and >with enough experience it becomes quite easy in fact. It's programmers that >make unwarrented assumptions about their code or platform that make for >unportable applications. I didn't say it wasn't possible only that saying the OS is unix meant it was not always a slam dunk and that compliation was often required. > Granted, on the 8-bit systems you often times had to code in Assembly, >both for speed and size reasons (and because compilers for such systems >weren't good enough) but when you get to UNIX the whole point was to avoid >assembly in the first place [1]. Therefore, you are writing in a higher >level, more portable language and then it becomes possible to write code >that will run across platforms. Heck, I've written a program that has >compiled across several different UNIX platforms (SGI, Linux on the x86, >Linux on the DEC Alpha, OpenBSD, FreeBSD) without problems [2] and you'll >notice that there is at least one 64-bit architecture listed there. The >same code was successfully compiled (with one line of code change, plus a >few other lines to get the correct header files loaded) under Microsoft >Windows. Okay, it may not have been optimum code under Windows, but it >still ran with minimum of changes or fuss. Thanks for the tutorial, I heard it back it 82 also. Experence however proved otherwise in practical terms. >[2] Okay, one problem---the DEC Alpha port crashed, but it was tracked > down to a bug in the C library call memchr(). In the past 1983-1988 that was far more commonplace to have incompatable compilers libraries. Allison

22 years, 3 months

Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

by mythtech＠mac.com

> Concerning my capacity to provide support, let me steal a quote from >the Jerry Springer Show. > > "Yew don't knoooow me! Yew don't know who Ah am!" ROFL!!! -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

22 years, 3 months

AS/400s in the Champaign area

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 19, William Donzelli wrote: > > FWIW the AS/400 is essentially the follow-on to the System/36, to the > > point of having a highly-evolved software environment allowing S/36 > > applications to run un-modified on AS/400. Supposedly there is some > > dotted-line relationship to S/38 as well, but I don't have any real > > information about that. > > The other way round, architecturally. AS/400 gained most from S/38 and > FS. The whole AS/400 family was designed to replace S/32, S/34, S/36, and > S/38. The AS/400 grew primarily out of the S/36 architecture but incorporated many architectural features of the S/38. It has a good deal of application compatibility with both the S/36 and the S/38. The S/38 (which came out before the S/36) is otherwise a fairly different machine from the S/32, S/34, and S/36. The lineage: System/3, 1969 System/32, 1975 System/34, 1977 System/38, 1978 System/36, 1983 AS/400 family, 1988 The last model of the System/36 line, the 5363, was "enhanced" (though I don't know how) and renamed "AS/Entry"...it seems to me that they followed the numbering scheme, but loosely. I don't have any hard information about this, but I'm guessing this is how they got to where they are now. I've put the possible "steps" through the naming system in brackets below. ... System/36 AS/Entry [AdvancedSystem/36] Advanced36 [AdvancedSystem/40] [AS/40] AS/400 -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

22 years, 3 months

[Fwd: HeathKit H11 Computer]

by bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: HeathKit H11 Computer Date: 22 Apr 2002 01:36:44 GMT From: jedchilds(a)aol.com (Jed Childs) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp11 HeathKit H11 Computer Complete with manuals DecWriter I/O, paper tapes, punch, reader, cpu and extra cards. $500 come and get it. Or write here or email. Jed

22 years, 3 months

Apple-1 Auction conclusion

by mythtech＠mac.com

>In case anyone is interested, the Apple-1 sold for $14,000, right at the >reserve price. So then that's a 'No' on my offer of $30 + shipping? :-) -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

22 years, 3 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb April 2002