test-drb May 2002

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

246 participants
947 discussions

L@@K R@RE On-topic posting! (SunOS4.0.2)

by alan.pearson＠cramer.com

Sorry to dilute the Unix/Windows/Mac flamewar with a vaguely on-topic posting, but does anyone have, or know of a site where I can get images of the SunOS4.0.2 install floppies (NOT tape) for the Sun 386i? I've got the original disks but they were used to hold "something else" long ago - now I'd like to restore them to their former glory :-) There used to be a set of images on an FTP site in one of the London universities, but they've gone :( Any pointers? Haven't found anything by googling, and I've been looking for a week or so now. This is my last resort, since I'm fully expecting to be flamed to a crisp for showing interest in a Unix variant :-) Cheers Al.

22 years, 9 months

9-Track Tape Density Terminaology Query

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

Bob Shannon wrote: > Nothin' says Vintage Computer better than a mini with the switch > register blinking and 10 inch reels of tape jumping back and forth. > > Not even an Altair or Imsai can touch that. (for those of > you who lack room for CPU's that don't fit on a chip) If I could stand and watch a 10-reel merge-sort again, I would just cry. > Now cold-booting from 9-track mag tape, thats pure Vintage Computing > (without the nasty cuts of paper tape)! Now, that one, I did just the other day! -dq

22 years, 9 months

APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?

by nemesis-lists＠icequake.net

Ben Franchuk wrote: > In my view that what I don't like about linux/unix -- the design > of the architecture is still based on very primitive user I/O devices > and a mode of computing that is not realistic today. It's quite realistic if you depend on programs being able to talk to each other, and being able to operate them in a simplistic manner when necessary. For end users, it might be inconvenient (which is why we now have multiple abstractions in the form of desktop environments, GUI programs, and what-have-you), but the mere existence of the capability for a simplistic interface does not force the user to go through that interface. e.g., you can use vi or pico if it suits you, and it's definitely easier for a script to use something like 'ed', but as a user, you're obviously not forced into only using those programs, as there are programs with arguably much more intuitive interfaces to do the same tasks. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

22 years, 9 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by nemesis-lists＠icequake.net

> The UNIX mindset is different: "It doesn't work? Hmm - lets find > out why. And fix it/make somebody fix it." - smells of good old > engineering. Precisely. Windows was designed to be a consumer operating system. UNIX was designed to be a techie's operating system. Case closed. Argument over. This is why UNIX vs Windows arguments hardly make sense, and get old. If you consider yourself a consumer, feel free to indulge yourself in the prettiness and dumbness of Windows, and not feel ashamed for it. Or, discover that a Linux distribution designed for end-user friendliness suits your needs too, and use that instead. Either way, why does it matter which is better designed or more powerful? As a consumer/user, you are concerned only with what you can use the operating system for. Why get in shouting matches over who does what better? It's irrelevant. If you're a techie, well, you're likely not using Windows anyway, having long discovered that its limitations and inconsistencies do not suit your manner of productivity. If you notice other techies being hampered by Windows, you probably introduce alternative systems to them, because you feel that it can improve their productivity. In other words, use what works best for you, and that you feel comfortable using. That's the pragmatic-modern view. However, this is ignoring the obvious problem with Microsoft and pure monopolistic capitalism, destroying innovation and limiting choice. Microsoft is proving that the idealistic concept of a "free market" really is bogus in some ways. HOWEVER: It is quite possible to decrease MS's market share and force them to play fair like everyone else. To do so, the goal is to _reduce the market share of Windows machines_. Very simple. Whether you're a MS fan or not, this is the only solution that makes sense in the long run. (A monopoly is good for nobody in the long run, not even its supporters.) Whether the machines run some flavor of UNIX or any other operating system is a moot issue -- it just so happens that most of the alternative operating systems that exist today are UNIX-based. If you'd rather use FoobarOS or CP/M, go for it. As a user or a developer of an alternative system: If you care about the system, work to improve it, and attract others to your platform by virtue of its capabilities. Perpetuating endless arguments is a waste of effort -- instead of arguing in circular fashion (Nuh-uh! Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh! ....), demonstrate in a practical manner how your platform is superior, and only when asked or otherwise appropriate. Be open, but don't shove it down people's throats. You'd be surprised how many people listen to reason, even when they themselves are not necessarily reasonable folk. A carefully constructed, relevant argument goes a long way towards promoting one's beliefs. I love 'nix as much as the next guy; but I also am quite fond of reason, ethics, and integrity. That's why I won't play dirty to beat MS into submission, even though _they_ reached their current position by playing dirty. A goal I'd much rather achieve is beating them at their own game, by simply being _better_ at it. Result? A better MS, better alternatives, and a fair market. Competition sorts out the market, but there has to be competition first. Free (as in beer) software is a great start to dislodge the 20-year Wintel monopoly. It gives people a glaringly obvious reason to move to a platform that is (in the opinions of its developers) better supported, more consistent, and has an open, flat development model, where every user and developer are equally powerful in driving its future. The initial shock of moving out of the grasp of MS may suck sometimes, but once gotten over, few go back. An idealistic wet dream? Probably. But I won't stop trying. I'll continue working to give people reasons _why_ they should use my platform, and hope that others do the same. (WARNING: 2am grogginess may be present in post) -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

22 years, 9 months

APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?

by nemesis-lists＠icequake.net

> Now I won't use anything else but vi, because it's fast, flexible and very > light on termcap (unlike a certain *ahem*PICO*ahem* other editor > *ahem*PICO*ahem* I could mention). It was well worth the effort. One of my > persistent threats is to write a stripped down vi clone for the C64. There's also a rewritten 'vi' called 'vim', for "vi improved". I was hesitant to use it at first, since it's much bigger/more bloated than good old BSD vi, but I've found that no editor in existence gets along better with funky terminals and termcaps on various UNIX systems than vim does. Some other niceties are a full command history, full undo history, and session recording. The full undo has saved my ass numerous times compared to the one-level undo of BSD vi. The command history is great when you want to edit a previous s-expression without typing the whole (blasted, cryptic, unreadable) thing over again. :) Session recording lets you use vim as a sed-like filter to automate making the same changes to numerous files. Highly recommended -- and it comes with a nice tutorial too for introducing newbies. And a GTK+ verson for those that prefer windowing. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

22 years, 9 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by Robert_Feldman＠jdedwards.com

<pedantic>My dictionary says John McIntosh discovered a late-maturing variety of red apple in Ontario in 1796. Said variety of apple is now named for him. Apple Computer chose a different spelling to name a line of their computers to play on the word "apple", but to be different.</pedantic -----Original Message----- From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:33 PM To: Classic Computer Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor >It's spelled WITH the 'a' in it at the grocery store ... they are a mite >tart, >but make decent pie ... Humm... I'll have to check that if I go to the store tonight, I could have sworn they list them as McIntosh Apples on the shelf tag and the little annoying fruit stickers stuck on them. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

22 years, 9 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by acme_ent＠bellsouth.net

> From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)conman.org> > So why do people expect to get immedate work out of a computer without > training? Because Bill Gates said they could. Glen 0/0

22 years, 9 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

>Is there some reason why people aren't flocking to this >the way they did to the original Windows? Because no one in the unix community has had the deep pockets to do the advertising blitz that MS did to cause people to want Windows. MS has NEVER sold a "superior" product... they have just done a great job of making people think it is better (usually thru lies, half truths, or errors of omission), and convincing the purchasers that MS products are what they want. Oh, and lets not discount their monopoly practices that have helped insure people use their products, and artificially inflate the counts of people that want to use it. Again, praying on the fact that most people are too ignorant, or don't care enough, to search for a better alternative. If someone can accomplish the task they want to do, and they can do it with some degree of ease and expediency, they are not apt to change the status quo. They are unlikely to investigate the fact that there may be better, faster, more capable ways of doing their tasks... Microsoft knows this, so they make sure their products are just good enough to make it past the initial break in time period (or in some cases, make sure it is sufficiently difficult to install or use the competition), and then they know most people will continue to use the product because "that's what they are used to". All of this has NOTHING to do with how good the product is, and everything to do with the psychology of marketing. And I don't think there is anyone that can argue the fact that MS has the best damn marketing department anywhere. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

22 years, 9 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com] > I've also got some *nix experience, and, frankly, anything > that requires I > recompile the OS just to install a driver is too much > trouble. I've done > that, but hopefully never will again. I thought I would mention here that Unix has had dynamically loadable kernel modules for a while. I know from experience that the Unix PC O/S (at least from 3.0) uses them for graphics stuff. IRIX has also had them, after a fashion, for a while. (Actually, IRIX has a "sysgen," but technically it's a re-link, not a re- compile) Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

22 years, 9 months

Cryptic Unix Arcana (was: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?)

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc(a)conman.org> > Message-Id: <200205070202.WAA10268(a)conman.org> > Subject: Cryptic Unix Arcana (was: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?) OH... MY... GOD! Sombody actually changed the subject line of this thread-from-Hell-that-just-wont-go-away! Thank you, Sean... this might revive my interest... ;)

22 years, 9 months

← Newer
1
...
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
...
95
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 May 2002