test-drb June 2013

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

216 participants
271 discussions

by wlewisiii＠gmail.com

As another sideline in my vintage computing, I've been wanting to get a Xenix 2.3.4 system set up. No good reason, just because I think it would be fun. I used it briefly early in my career so I have a soft spot for it despite it's massive amounts of cruft and breakage. O_o I currently have the base OS & Developer Kit set up in emulation. My goal, unlikely though it is, is to get as complete a Xenix system as possible up and running on an old 386 or 486 class laptop. However, the various unbundled bits are rare as which ever proverb you care to use. The unbundled kits I'm still looking for are these: 386 Developer kit 2.3.1 (I have 2.3.0d) CGI 1.1.0 Text Processing 2.3.0 (nroff & friends) Manual Pages 2.3.0 VP/ix 1.2.0 vpix (run MS-DOS apps slowly.) TCP/IP Runtime 1.2.0 tcprt (it'd be fun to run Lynx!) (Depends on Streams) TCP/IP Development 1.0.1 tcpdev Streams Runtime 1.0.0 streamsrt Streams Toolkit 1.0.0 streamstk Of course apps like Word, Multiplan, FoxPro & etc would be wonderful if unlikely as well. My budget is somewhere between slim and none. Can anyone assist or point me in the right direction? Thanks! William -- Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance like no-one is watching. Alex White

11 years, 1 month

Huge supply of Osborne computers and parts in Orange, CA

by tosteve＠yahoo.com

I was contacted by Gary Berg about selling his late fathers Osborne computer systems and parts. His father was a local Osborne computer repair guy in Orange County, CA, but not employed by Osborne. During his time, he acquired hundreds of spare parts, and bought even more when Osborne went out of business. Because of this, he has lots of parts, some brand new, never used. This includes floppy drives, motherboards, keyboards, software, manuals, magazines, and even entire computers in the box, never opened.? Almost entirely Osborne 01 and 01a related. Some Executive parts. I can go back and look at stuff, but it is 30 miles away. Most will eventually go on eBay, unless you get there first. Yes, they will ship. Download pictures here (19 pictures, 4MB in total) http://oldcomputers.net/temp/osborne-collection.zip Contact Gary directly if interested in some or all -? garyvwguy at hotmail.com

11 years, 1 month

What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes?

by ethan.dicks＠gmail.com

Hi, All, Going through stuff on the shelf and I've run across a couple of 486-based fully-integrated LCD/touchscreen machines. One is a SCAN Corporation SCANtouch Model 3000, the other is a Planar Systems box. Similarities include limited memory (2x 72-pin SIMM sockets on the SCANtouch or 4x 30-pin SIMM sockets on the Planar, both with "double-sided SIMM" support, so 64MB or 32MB max respectively), one ISA socket (no PCI), onboard NE2000, serial, parallel, 2.5" PATA disk... these systems will run MS-DOS, of course, and Win95 (the touch screen on the SCANtouch is old enough that it apparently doesn't work with Win98 mouse drivers, according to forum posts I dug up). I really don't care about running DOS or Win95 on a touchscreen/LCD machine, and the practical alternative is some flavor of Linux or UNIX. What I'm having difficulty digging up is when the break from low-mem/pre-Pentium systems happened and what distros are on which side of the divide. RedHat 7/8/9 require a Pentium and 64MB minimum >from what I can research/remember. The last time I ran Linux on a 486, it was Yggdrasil (and before that, some early form of Slackware on a 386). So... anyone have a "go-to" Linux distro for sticking on a 486? I know RedHat 5.2 will work - that's what's on my PS/2-E (w/486SLC and 12MB of free mem I was recently discussing). Any other choices? At one time, when a Dell P-133 Latitude laptop was my main machine, I ran Solaris 7 on it (because it was a better choice than Linux at the time) even though it still had some issues (and workarounds) with the NeoMagic video chipset and the 3Com 3C589 PCMCIA NIC. I suspect this is likely to have similar "challenges". I've dug up full specs on the Scantouch 3000 innards - PCM-4890 integrated CPU board, NE2000 (Realtek RTL8019) Ethernet, C&T 65545 video chipset w/800x600 max LCD resolution, Sharp LM10V33 VGA (640x480) 10.4" color LCD, VIA VT82C496G chipset, , PC104 sockets... so I have little concern about getting *something* working with it. Getting 10-year-old RedHat working on a Pentium-class machine isn't a real challenge, but it's been long enough since I've really fiddled with 486s that specific memories of system configuration are getting a bit fuzzy. At one time, over 15 years ago, it was a daily thing knowing the ins and outs of what the 486 could and couldn't do, before CPUs and memory and clock speeds took off like a rocket, and when 4MB was ordinary, but more than 16MB was uncomfortably expensive for hobby gear. Helpful suggestions wanted. Thanks, -ethan

11 years, 1 month

Esperanto as natural language [was RE: Learning simplified versions]

by RichA＠vulcan.com

From: Fred Cisin Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:19 PM > Should we define Esperanto as a "living human language"? That is a question that has arisen in the context of creole studies and the study of linguistic universals in linguistics. Esperanto as defined by Zamenhof violates several apparent universals of human language, and speakers have smoothed out some of those rough edges. In addition, there are reports of native speakers of Esperanto, defined as children for whom it is the first language, learned in environments in which only Esperanto was spoken. These reports have been questioned, as one might imagine, but I personally have not followed up on them as they fall outside my personal interests. So: If there are children who speak it natively, then the answer to Fred's question is certainly "yes". Given the very large community for whom it is a useful second language, with literature as well, then the answer is "yes, probably". If it were restricted (as it is not) to a minimal vocabulary with no potential for growth, then the answer would be "certainly not". I'm of the "yes, probably" camp most of the time. Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer Vulcan, Inc. 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 mailto:RichA at vulcan.com mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/

11 years, 1 month

Which PDP-8 is this? (ebay: 261232211533)

by gerhard.kreuzer＠liftoff.at

... 8/L ... ??? -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Im Auftrag von cctalk-request at classiccmp.org Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Juni 2013 19:00 An: cctalk at classiccmp.org Betreff: cctalk Digest, Vol 118, Issue 73 Send cctalk mailing list submissions to cctalk at classiccmp.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to cctalk-request at classiccmp.org You can reach the person managing the list at cctalk-owner at classiccmp.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of cctalk digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Pile on X11 - Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? (Liam Proven) 2. Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? (Liam Proven) 3. Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? (Liam Proven) 4. Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? (Liam Proven) 5. RE: Circuit Cellar site... (Andrew Lynch) 6. Re: Which PDP-8 is this? (ebay: 261232211533) (Vincent Slyngstad) 7. wireless monitoring - need suggestions please (Tom Uban) 8. Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? (Tothwolf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:07:01 +0100 From: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Pile on X11 - Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? Message-ID: <CAMTenCHoPEiMG32+CbxDUu_0Seuxa+mCBuJJmCfzBo7Z2rSeBg at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 22 June 2013 04:04, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote: > On 21/06/13 9:59 AM, Liam Proven wrote: >> >> On 21 June 2013 05:09, Toby Thain<toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote: >>> >>> On 20/06/13 10:22 PM, Liam Proven wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Absolutely. But trying to be all things to all men leads to bloat. >>> >>> You're not seriously trying to tell us that X11 - which was designed >>> to run, and ran, on machines older than some people subscribed to >>> this list - is "bloated"? >> >> /Modern/ X.11 as used on modern Linux? Yes. It's >> indirectly-composited via OpenGL and a plethora of layers. > > I haven't suffered by this inefficiency myself, but I'll take your > word for it. It works quite well for me. I merely report what others are saying. > (Say, don't you spend more time using Windows than Linux?) Me? Good gracious, no. My main PC doesn't even have a working copy of Windows on it and neither did the previous one. My notebooks do, mainly for BIOS flashing but occasionally for reproducing clients' issues. These days, I pretty much only use Windows if someone is paying me to. >> Versus Wayland... >> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_wayland_situatio >> n&num=1 >> >> http://askubuntu.com/questions/11537/why-is-wayland-better >> >> Versus Mir... >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/05/canonical_mir_announcement/ >> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMzMTQ > > So basically they've decided to do what NEXTSTEP (1989) and OS X (GPU > acceleration since 10.2: 2001) did. A fair summary, yes. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:15:05 +0100 From: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? Message-ID: <CAMTenCHMTGcsqpssTZR-9SF7+p7HteS7Ljg5WqsQR3bnPi1Jhg at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 22 June 2013 18:29, Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Liam Proven wrote: >> >> On 21 June 2013 15:21, Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> wrote: >> >>> Most servers do not show up in browser and http server estimates >> >> >> Who's talking about servers? We all know Linux is really strong in >> servers. No argument there. > > We are talking about usage share. Are we? I thought I was talking about networkable X.11, which by and large doesn't really apply to servers. I don't know what you feel that we're talking about. > Just as you cannot accurately measure the > number of servers out there that make use Linux, you similarly cannot > /accurately/ measure the number of workstations which make use of Linux. Definte "accurately", with your idea of acceptable error bars, and compare those to the accuracy of figures for Macs and Windows. *I* find the figures acceptable, myself. > Those that tamper with the headers more often than not either strip the > useragent or replace it with their own useragent. [[Citation needed]] More to the point, some kind of evidence that this is a significant factor. TBH it sounds like special pleading to me: "we don't know how many desktop Linux users are, we can't know, but probably there are more than reported and logged because lots of them are _hiding_." >> Either way, such things would affect /all/ users on all platforms, no? > > Yes, however given Microsoft's market share, it is going to skew the numbers > for operating systems such as Linux more than it would for Microsoft > Windows. You'll have to walk me through that reasoning. I do not understand or see what you mean at all. >>> That isn't even taking into account that many Linux users end up >>> configuring their browsers to report false user agent strings >> >> Very very rare, IME. >> >>> in order to force the numerous broken websites out >>> there to still work with browsers other than Firefox and Internet >>> Explorer >>> under MS Windows. >> >> That way something the hardcore did in the 1990s. It's unheard-of now. >> I see a broken site a few times a /decade./ > > No, it isn't unheard of, rather it is actually quite a common practice due > to bonehead server administrators running software such as 'mod_security' > along with rules that only allow browsers with "popular" useragents to > access sites (on the false premise that the other useragents are faked > and/or are "hackers" trying to break into their website, and that "blocking" > them makes their website more secure). Assuming that this is a rare 1990s > practice and that no-one really does this anymore would be rather foolish. > In fact, I ran into this issue with Consumer Reports website last year and > took the time to try to educate them. Their reply? "We outsource our web > administration and they can't fix it." Again, [[citation needed]]. I've been a desktop Linux user full-time for a decade now, and part-time for about 6-7y before that. I have encountered this problem so very, *very* seldom it is not a factor and has not been this century. > Moreover, these browser-based usage share meters all share another common > fault -- they only make one report per IP address per sample window, which > is usually 24 hours (although some only take one sample per IP every 7 > days). This means if you have a NAT router (who doesn't?) and have say a > Mac, and Windows PC, and a Linux workstation, only the first used in that > sample window is going to be recorded, and there is no real way of knowing > which website you visit is doing the sampling. If you also have a smartphone > connected to your NAT via WiFi, then that smartphone's useragent is going to > be the one recorded for your IP during the sample window. This affects usage > numbers for the "less common" operating systems more than the "more popular" > operating systems, because operating systems such as Microsoft Windows have > a larger market share. That one is interesting, I'll give you. I've not heard that before and you do have a possible point there, although once again, I'd like to see some actual evidence that it was occurring. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:18:50 +0100 From: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? Message-ID: <CAMTenCFdCMDXKKrV9-6whaTK7H_VbbRHFiR_T-tW3vnAE9tw3A at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 23 June 2013 00:19, Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org> wrote: >>>> [...] the numerous broken websites out there to still work with >>>> browsers other than Firefox and Internet Explorer under MS Windows. > >>> That way something the hardcore did in the 1990s. It's unheard-of >>> now. I see a broken site a few times a /decade./ > > Tell that to Facebook, which still refuses to serve up any kind of > content to me when I try to script-fetch an image someone links me to > or some such, instead returning a redirect to a "you're using an > unsupported browser, use one of this half-dozen" (all, of course, are > thoroughly bloated monstrosities). I haven't bothered trying providing > a lying User-Agent: header, largely because it would be fairly > inconvenient for me to capture a sample header to base my forgery on. > > I think Facebook hardly counts as "unheard-of". [1] You do realise that you are over-trimming (*again*) and replying to 2 different people in a single message here, don't you? In this one, you're answering me, via an answer to someone else who quoted my text. [2] You're trying to do something which FB is specifically trying to block -- IOW you're not using a browser, you're trying to scrape images directly via a script -- and you're complaining that FB's efforts to prevent /exactly the sort of thing that you're doing/ are successful? [Mocking laughter] Yeah, right. >> I ran into this issue with Consumer Reports website last year and >> took the time to try to educate them. Their reply? "We outsource >> our web administration and they can't fix it." > > "You need to fire them and hire _competent_ web admins." (Yes, I > realize that's preaching to the choir. :/) > >> This means if you have a NAT router (who doesn't?) > > I don't. Well, I do have NAT set up, but I don't have anything in the > NATted range except for a SIP phone. All this proves is that you're a weirdo who likes to do things the hard way. As was evinced earlier in your reply. No news there. >> and have say a Mac, and Windows PC, and a Linux workstation, only the >> first used in that sample window is going to be recorded, [...] This >> affects usage numbers for the "less common" operating systems more >> than the "more popular" operating systems, because operating systems >> such as Microsoft Windows have a larger market share. > > Actually, if you think of it as measuring "number of uses" rather than > "number of installed hosts", it's measuring exactly what it should be > measuring. (Measuring it imprecisely, because of the "first hit within > the sample window" effect, but that's what it's measuring.) A fair point. (Also, in saying so, I hope that I am showing that I am not being biased or taking an ad-hominem approach.) -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:20:22 +0100 From: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? Message-ID: <CAMTenCFpmAhzsvY=STu4dg-RwCxGCVXm9f-CdaLztRborL88Og at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 23 June 2013 02:40, Alexander Schreiber <als at thangorodrim.de> wrote: > Well, I _did_ try to use a MacBook as a laptop at work once. I gave it > back in disgust after two months because I couldn't get _work_ done with > the darn thing. Returned to my Thinkpad running Linux and work got done > again ;-) So long as you have something that works for you, good. I must say, though, that most of the old-time Linux users that I know -- the determined hardcore who were using it in the 1990s, who've been on it for a decade or more -- have almost *all* switched to Mac OS X now. > But Android solves a different problem: a mobile phone/tablet OS, not > a workstation OS. Sure. But this shows that the approach of getting rid of X.11 is not limited to a single niche. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:49:44 -0400 From: "Andrew Lynch" <LYNCHAJ at YAHOO.COM> To: <n8vem at googlegroups.com> Cc: cctalk at classiccmp.org, 'Oscar Vermeulen' <o.vermeulen at altis.ch> Subject: RE: Circuit Cellar site... Message-ID: <002801ce7018$850de750$8f29b5f0$(a)YAHOO.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Woo Hoo! Check out the new article on the N8VEM on Circuit Cellar! http://circuitcellar.com/featured/diy-single-board-computers/ Oscar has put together the N8VEM articles and has done all the work for the publication. Congratulations Oscar! This is wonderful! Thank you very much! Have a nice day! Andrew Lynch From: Oscar Vermeulen [mailto:o.vermeulen at altis.ch] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:05 PM To: Andrew Lynch Subject: Circuit Cellar site... Andrew, Wow! The N8VEM article is on their web site! Cheers, Oscar. -- Oscar Vermeulen <o.vermeulen at altis.ch> Altis Investment Management AG Poststrasse 18, 6300 Zug, Switzerland T: +41-415601311 www.altis.ch This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity named herein. If you are not the herein named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or otherwise make use of this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake, and delete this e-mail from your system. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:05:40 -0700 From: Vincent Slyngstad <vrs at msn.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Which PDP-8 is this? (ebay: 261232211533) Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP146A4AF31C109CE00B58429B2890 at phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response From: Jos Dreesen: Saturday, June 22, 2013 11:19 PM > On 06/22/2013 11:38 PM, Vincent Slyngstad wrote: >> I did hear of the existence of at least one other. Basically, I had >> speculated that >> I had the only one, and someone said "No you don't.". I forget who said >> that, >> though. > > Not that it is important, but I also have a BM8L . > I send you paper copies of the documentation, but that was already some years > before. ( ~2004) Cool, and thanks! My memory is so odd for these sorts of things. (I've thought of cool things to do CAD drawings for, only to find them already finished years prior, and I'd forgotten doing them.) Your posting reminds me that I was waiting for the BM8L drawings at one point, so I have no doubt you are correct. Perhaps I had munged it in my memory with the BM812i drawings. > I could use a pic of the innards, for when I actually get around to doing > something with it ! I'll probably have to pull it out when I move that rack. I'll try to remember to snap a photo then, if I don't get to it before. > Further rare PDP8 items in my home : a fully maxed up 8A. (128K memory, RL01 > drive, and FPP-8A ) Nice. I have the memory for mine, but I don't think I have an FPP-8A (unless it is like those CAD drawings). > Furthermore some omnibus boards for hardware acceleration of an OCR > application. I wonder about the Omnibus boards used in CNC, medical, other applications. As far as I can tell there's no-one collecting and documenting those. Vince ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:43:40 -0500 From: Tom Uban <uban at ubanproductions.com> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: wireless monitoring - need suggestions please Message-ID: <51C717AC.9040503 at ubanproductions.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm wanting to add some wireless monitoring of temperatures and power on various devices throughout my brewery and I suspect someone on this list is up to date on the technology which would work well and be a good low cost starting point. I am mostly looking for guidance on the best board to use for interconnect. I will take care of the programming and any hardware modifications and/or additions. Is zigbee what I want? I have fermenters, chillers, condensing units coolers, etc throughout the building, so minimally one or so A/D inputs and possibly a couple of digital inputs on the board should suit my needs. In the long run I want to check on status from my smartphone as well as have the system alert me if there is an alarm condition. If the "base station" is either connected to our local network or plugs into a PC/mac, that should be workable. Thanks in advance... --tom ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:52:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1306230950340.30736 at brioche.invalid.domain> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Liam Proven wrote: > On 22 June 2013 18:29, Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Liam Proven wrote: >>> On 21 June 2013 15:21, Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Most servers do not show up in browser and http server estimates >>> >>> Who's talking about servers? We all know Linux is really strong in >>> servers. No argument there. >> >> We are talking about usage share. > > Are we? > > I thought I was talking about networkable X.11, which by and large > doesn't really apply to servers. I don't know what you feel that we're > talking about. It certainly seems like you were, until you just now claimed claimed otherwise... : In-Reply-To: <201306211137.HAA10837 at Chip.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> : Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:44:00 +0100 : Message-ID: <CAMTenCGtZVXaRstyrQ6_uRT7+vtdUSY1Nd-deXeNHg2PeE57sA at mail.gmail.com> : Subject: Re: Devs should be testing on slow machines - Re: What versions of Linux (or UNIX) are good on old 486 boxes? : From: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> : [SNIP] : There are evidence-backed estimates. : http://askubuntu.com/questions/80379/how-many-ubuntu-users-are-there-worldwi de : 12-20 million. : Various other measures estimate around 0.8% to 1.25% of the market: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_uptake#Measuring_desktop_adoption [SNIP] : Mac usage is /way/ higher. : http://www.numberof.net/number%C2%A0of%C2%A0mac%C2%A0users/ : http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/11/apple-there-are-now-66-million-mac-users-40 -run-lion-22-million-copies-of-lion-shipped/ [SNIP] >> Just as you cannot accurately measure the >> number of servers out there that make use Linux, you similarly cannot >> /accurately/ measure the number of workstations which make use of Linux. > > Definte "accurately", with your idea of acceptable error bars, and > compare those to the accuracy of figures for Macs and Windows. > > *I* find the figures acceptable, myself. > >> Those that tamper with the headers more often than not either strip the >> useragent or replace it with their own useragent. > > [[Citation needed]] Look it up yourself. I've already done so (many years ago -- Wikipedia doesn't write itself) and I certainly don't feel the need to look it up for you. Hint: AT&T, Comcast, COX, Time Warner, and :gasp: AOL have all done this at various times and various other ISPs (transparent proxies) and some webhosts (load balancing, caching) /still/ do. > More to the point, some kind of evidence that this is a significant > factor. TBH it sounds like special pleading to me: "we don't know how > many desktop Linux users are, we can't know, but probably there are > more than reported and logged because lots of them are _hiding_." Straw Man. [[Insert giant ASCII middle finger]] >>> Either way, such things would affect /all/ users on all platforms, no? >> >> Yes, however given Microsoft's market share, it is going to skew the numbers >> for operating systems such as Linux more than it would for Microsoft >> Windows. > > You'll have to walk me through that reasoning. I do not understand or > see what you mean at all. Let me get this straight...you don't understand how the percentages are calculated? >>>> That isn't even taking into account that many Linux users end up >>>> configuring their browsers to report false user agent strings >>> >>> Very very rare, IME. >>> >>>> in order to force the numerous broken websites out >>>> there to still work with browsers other than Firefox and Internet >>>> Explorer >>>> under MS Windows. >>> >>> That way something the hardcore did in the 1990s. It's unheard-of now. >>> I see a broken site a few times a /decade./ >> >> No, it isn't unheard of, rather it is actually quite a common practice due >> to bonehead server administrators running software such as 'mod_security' >> along with rules that only allow browsers with "popular" useragents to >> access sites (on the false premise that the other useragents are faked >> and/or are "hackers" trying to break into their website, and that "blocking" >> them makes their website more secure). Assuming that this is a rare 1990s >> practice and that no-one really does this anymore would be rather foolish. >> In fact, I ran into this issue with Consumer Reports website last year and >> took the time to try to educate them. Their reply? "We outsource our web >> administration and they can't fix it." > > Again, [[citation needed]]. I've been a desktop Linux user full-time > for a decade now, and part-time for about 6-7y before that. I have > encountered this problem so very, *very* seldom it is not a factor and > has not been this century. You must not get around the web very much, then. [5 Aug 2012] : "Our host operates a security perimeter that performs this and other filtering, the rules simply aren't under our control. The Comodo browser, based on the Chromium codebase, also sports a u-a that the security perimeter does not allow through." : : "I apologize again for the inconvenience and hope you'll be able to stay with us." I still don't know why he mentioned Comodo, since that wasn't what I was using or asking about. I had reported to them that Firefox (nightly builds) and Lynx (all versions) were not working with their site. http://yousefourabi.com/blog/2007/10/blocking-bots-with-mod-security/ : "There are two approaches: 1) Block everything but a pre-approved white list, 2) Allow everything except a pre-denied black list." The first approach may not be a workable solution, and as stupid as it might it, that doesn't stop people from _trying_ anyway. >> Moreover, these browser-based usage share meters all share another common >> fault -- they only make one report per IP address per sample window, which >> is usually 24 hours (although some only take one sample per IP every 7 >> days). This means if you have a NAT router (who doesn't?) and have say a >> Mac, and Windows PC, and a Linux workstation, only the first used in that >> sample window is going to be recorded, and there is no real way of knowing >> which website you visit is doing the sampling. If you also have a smartphone >> connected to your NAT via WiFi, then that smartphone's useragent is going to >> be the one recorded for your IP during the sample window. This affects usage >> numbers for the "less common" operating systems more than the "more popular" >> operating systems, because operating systems such as Microsoft Windows have >> a larger market share. > > That one is interesting, I'll give you. I've not heard that before and > you do have a possible point there, although once again, I'd like to > see some actual evidence that it was occurring. http://www.google.com/ ... End of cctalk Digest, Vol 118, Issue 73 ***************************************

11 years, 1 month

Available S-100 PCBs

by LYNCHAJ＠YAHOO.COM

Hi! There are fourteen (14) of the S-100 IDE V2 reorder PCBs available. http://s100computers.com/My%20System%20Pages/IDE%20Board/My%20IDE%20Card.htm The S-100 PCBs cost the same as before ($20 each).? Shipping in the US is $3 for a single PCB and $2 for each additional PCB.? Shipping internationally is $10 for a single PCB and $3 for each additional PCB.? This is for the bare basics USPS first class postage with no tracking or insurance.? The builder assumes all risk of delivery as per usual arrangement. If you would like one or more S-100 PCBs please send a PayPal to LYNCHAJ at YAHOO.COM Thanks and have a nice day! Andrew Lynch

11 years, 1 month

IBM 5363 (S/36) led codes

by supervinx＠libero.it

Hi ! Anyone knows the meaning of the front panel led code C972? I suspect it's a disk-related one, but no pdfs seem to exist in the net... -- Vincenzo (aka Supervinx) --==ooOoo==-- My computer collection: http://www.supervinx.com/Retrocomputer --==ooOoo==-- You can reach me at: www.supervinx.com www.facebook.com/supervinx http://www.youtube.com/user/supervinx http://www.myspace.com/supervinx

11 years, 1 month

Xyplex MAXserver 1608 firmware

by b4＠gewt.net

Anyone have the software these need laying around? I?ll keep googling. Just wondering if anyone could save me some time.

11 years, 1 month

Zentec 8392 Manual FFS

by technobug＠comcast.net

A complete "Video Display Terminal Zentec 8392 Operator's Manual", Pub. No. 88-0486-201, Issue A, May 1986 appeared at my recycler. Free for shipping from 85704, USA to first responder. ->CRC

11 years, 1 month

SEED or Strumech Engineering Electronic Developments MP6800

by dave.thearchivist＠gmail.com

Just cataloguing a small reference card for this item, Google fails to find it Seems SEED sold the MSI-6800 from adverts I have found but did they also produce/sell something else? or is that reference (MP6800) the part number of CPU card of the MSI-6800? Dave Caroline

11 years, 1 month

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
28
Older →

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 June 2013