test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 22, 1:12, Doc wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Chad Fernandez wrote: > > > By commercial grade I just meant that I wanted to avoid the home grade > > stuff that may not have features, or only a few connections. The type > > of thing that Best Buy, Staples, or another cunsumer oriented store may > > carry for your average Windows user. > > Amazingly, the home grade stuff that's on the shelves lately really is > plenty for a home net. The features it doesn't have are next to useless > on a network with fewer than 25 nodes. > Stay away from the firewall appliances though. They're notoriously > easy to get through. Agreed on both counts. > > What's the difference between managed and unmanaged? > > A serial port, a password, and several decimal points. That's about it :-) > Seriously, a managed switch allows you to define which nodes can "go" > where, force connection parameters - 10Mb or 100, full-duplex or half - > keep transfer statistics, etc. A really good one will cost over a > grand. Like I said, I have one, and I prefer my little $70 NetGear > 10/100 auto-sensing switch. Unless you're really into networks for their own sake, or have a big enough one that you need to monitor and manage it remotely, plug-in-and-go is better. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

24 years

suggestions on BBC Micro, voltage converter, PAL monitor (in US)?

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 21, 22:05, Derek Peschel wrote: > It has been my mission for some time to bring a BBC Micro back from > England. I would need some way to adapt British plugs to US sockets > and convert the voltage, and I would also need a PAL monitor. (No, I > don't want black-and-white NTSC. Yes, I could bring a montior back from > England along with the computer. I'm not sure if I want to do that.) Some of the Beeb PSUs have a jumper to change from 220/240V to 110/120. You probably don't want a PAL monitor, but you probably do want an RGB one that can handle 625 lines (15.something kHz horizontal and 50Hz vertical). > Does anyone have experience with these things? I am hoping to save > money ($500 would be above the top of my price range) but I don't want > to fry anything either. > > Oh yes, and if anyone has an extra Beeb hanging around that would be > nice too. They're not uncommon here. I bet one of us Brits could find one cheaply for you, if we knew when you were coming over and where you'd be. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

24 years

Network Hub selection help needed

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 22, 1:21, Chad Fernandez wrote: > By commercial grade I just meant that I wanted to avoid the home grade > stuff that may not have features, or only a few connections. The type > of thing that Best Buy, Staples, or another cunsumer oriented store may > carry for your average Windows user. Ah, well there aren't all that many features to distinguish a dumb hub (or switch) from another dumb hub (or switch). Number of ports, whether it supports autosensing 10/100, internal or external PSU, noise level (ones with internal PSUs often have a fan), colour of the box, and that's about it. Some low-end devices are more reliable than others, of course. > > 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. > > > > What's the difference between managed and unmanaged? Unmanaged means a dumb device that has no configuration settings, provides no stats, and has no address of its own. A managed hub or switch will have it's own IP (and/or IPX address, rarely DECnet or Appletalk) and will usually support SNMP (the Simple Network Management Protocol) and/or some kind of web interface. That will allow remote configuration of things like IP address, spanning tree settings (if it's a switch), port settings (enabled or not, half/full/auto/duplex, 10/100/auto, etc), VLANs (if it's a modern switch), and monitoring and interrogation of internal data (byte/packet/collision/error counts on ports, port state, MAC address(es) last seen on each port). The management costs a lot extra. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

24 years

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

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

Oh, ok. It's late. :) -Dave On April 22, Richard Erlacher wrote: > That's my point, Dave! > > Dick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire(a)neurotica.com> > To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 12:03 AM > Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format) > > > > On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote: > > > Friendlier OS' (e.g. Windows) have equivalent tools that are less onerous > in > > > the demands they place on the user. Just ask the typical programmer what > a > > > "regular expression" is. Better yet, give him a task requiring the use of > > > > Umm, a programmer that doesn't know what a regular expression is, is > > no programmer at all. > > > > Has Microsoft really steered us toward a future full of nontechnical > > computer programmers? > > > > -Dave > > > > -- > > Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." > > St. Petersburg, FL -Den > > > > > > -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

24 years

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

24 years

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

24 years

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

24 years

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

24 years

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>

24 years

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

24 years

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>

24 years

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

24 years

[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

24 years

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>

24 years

AS/400s in the Champaign area

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 19, William Donzelli wrote: > > The do indeed classify the S/390 as a mainframe...because, well, > > that's what it is. :-) > > Not any more - they are all "servers". xSeries, iSeries, pSeries, and > zSeries (the z's being the S/390 followups). Umm, I have to disagree with you there...the machines in question are indeed of a mainframe architecture, and some IBMers were calling them "servers" many years before the zSeries was even an itch in IBM's pants. Regardless of what industry buzzwords the marketroids are trying to take advantage of...those machines implement the S/390 architecture, which is a mainframe architecture descended from mainframe architectures. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

24 years

classiccmp-digest V1 #927

by foxnhare＠bigvalley.net

> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:28:35 -0700 (PDT) > From: Cameron Kaiser <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu> > Subject: Dayna EtherPrint-T and AppleShare > > 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. Larry -- 01000011 01001111 01001101 01001101 01001111 01000100 01001111 01010010 01000101 Larry Anderson - Sysop of Silicon Realms BBS (209) 754-1363 300-14.4k bps Set your 8-bit C= rigs to sail for http://www.portcommodore.com/ 01000011 01001111 01001101 01010000 01010101 01010100 01000101 01010010 01010011

24 years

Apple-1 Auction conclusion

by mythtech＠mac.com

>I don't care whether these things sell for a million each. It still won't >make me want one. Good one less person to take one away from me :-) -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

24 years

Apple-1 Auction conclusion

by mythtech＠mac.com

>Btw- Did the winner bid against himself? He had the winning bid of $14K, >but he had an earlier bid (the 2nd highest one) in the 12.5K which look >like should have won the auction. Probably because of the reserve price (I didn't watch the auction, but Sellam did make a quick mention of the $14k being right at the reserve) -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

24 years

What a weekend!

by rachael_＠gmx.net

Hi I have just return home from a Good weekend, bringing the following parts with me home :) VaxStation 4000vlc Commodore Sx64 3x Commodore A2088 pc cards Commdore A2500 memory board for A2000A Commdore A2058 memory board GVP Gforce 040 acc. card for A2000 Supra scsi interface Kupke scsi interface 2x a1200 boards a cdtv mother board 3x Xircom parallel port ethernet adaptors a ASK lcd display for overhead projectors a HP Remote bridge RB 28674B ( have no idee what it is) 6 joysticks and some mouse/joystick auto switches Microsoft windows (c) 1987 Chameleon NFS Xvision X server for windows A isa tvcard a 8ports serial isa card a sbc 286 and a 586 pc and passiv backplate for them Xeno link bbs for amiga Lemmings tribes for amiga virtual carting2 for amiga a com21 cable modem We had only planed for the first two thing, but we found some extras. Atlast I have my first Vax, but now I have so many other new things that I wont have time to play with it the first couple of weeks. Regards Jacob Dahl Pind -- CBM, Amiga,Vintage hardware collector Email: Rachael_(a)gmx.net url: http://rachael.dyndns.org

24 years

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

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 21, Sridhar the POWERful wrote: > > I've done it for twenty years. Most of the stuff I've written runs > > on 20+ different operating systems...it doesn't run under Windows, but > > that's irrelevant, because it's one proprietary, non-standards- > > compliant platform that most people in my industry don't use. (See > > comments about "our own worlds" above) > > I'll bet your software will compile and run fine under Windows using > Cygnus's stuff. This is likely...it's an impressive piece of work. Though I can't help but wonder...why not just use a real OS in the first place? It's treating the symptom, not the problem. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

24 years

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

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote: > Well, when I want groceries, I go to the grocery store, and when I want > computer hardware I go to the computer store ... When I want software to do > what I want my computer to do, I have to go where they sell it. ...and if you take that route, you'll get what you're looking for. Commercial software. If you're fine with that, more power to you. > EMACS isn't particularly useful tool for everyday word-processing, either, > though it certainly can do it. I have a "friendlified" EMACS (really a > DOS-based EMACS-in-a-shell) that works pretty well for lots of things for > which one normally would have used EMACS for want of another capable tool. > Nowadays, I can do all that simple stuff in WORD, like hundreds of millions of > others. Of course Emacs isn't good at word processing, because it's a text editor. It's also not very good at schematic capture, for the same reason. ;) > I've gotten software gratis all my life. Even the Microsoft products I have > were all originally provided, gratis, from Microsoft. I've never been offered > a single bit of UNIX software, ever, by any Unix software vendor. They even > charge for providing stuff that they claim to give you for free, and then, > when it doesn't work as advertised, which it seldom does if it works at all, > they charge you to make it work, which often costs plenty and results in > nothing. You're missing the whole point. "UNIX software vendor". Mainstream software in the UNIX world is FREE. It's the commercial stuff that's the oddball in this world. > I'm not sure what you mean by "network server." I've used a PC I mean it in the most general of ways. > as a server right here in the house for over a decade. There's not You trust your data to a PC? Well, that's your risk, not mine. ;) > one non-PC machine in my ISP POP either. There's a mix of OS' in- > cluding LINUX and UNIX, but it's the most generally provisioned > "small" ISP in the area and has a reputation for fewer breakdowns > and fewer busy signals on dialups than any other ISP, including the > muti-billion-dollar guys like AOL, MSN, and Qwest. I'd say that's pretty unusual...and having been in the thick of the ISP industry from its beginning, I feel I can say that with some authority. More power to them, even if they do make...questionable choices. And before you take exception to that...if I were to describe to you a commercial construction firm that made nice buildings and had a good reputation, but they used Volkswagen Beetles to haul their lumber and cinderblocks and radio-controlled tanks to do their welding and riveting, wouldn't you have something to say about that? > The first thing I'd ask about "writing the software portably" would be, > "Who's going to do that, and whom are we serving by doing that?" > The few dozen folks in my market area, worldwide, who'd prefer to > use UNIX might like it, but would they send any dough our way? > Probably not ... Is your work THAT unusual? I'm now VERY curious to know what you do. EVERYONE I know personally who does electronic design work (save for maybe two) uses some UNIX variant to do it, except for FPGA stuff we discussed earlier. That constitutes about twenty people. I think this very clearly proves the point that we tend to see the stuff in "our own worlds" very clearly, but the stuff *outside* our own areas of experience seem very distant or even nonexistant. In my world, Winodws and PeeCee hardware is weird, overpriced, proprietary stuff that's difficult to find and not very widely used. Everyone...and I mean EVERYONE in my peer group runs UNIX of one sort or another. A few have these esoteric Windows boxes for playing video games, but not many. That said, I respect the fact that your experience differs from mine, and that you have a different point of view...and because of this, I read your comments with interest, and learn from them. > Secondly, I have serious doubts that there's a way to write software > that is both portable and fully functional in all cases. There are > limitations, I'm sure, and the devil's in the details. I've done it for twenty years. Most of the stuff I've written runs on 20+ different operating systems...it doesn't run under Windows, but that's irrelevant, because it's one proprietary, non-standards-compliant platform that most people in my industry don't use. (See comments about "our own worlds" above) > > Linux is a mess no matter how you slice it, mostly thrown together by > > script kiddies with no experience whatsoever...it's a bad idea to > > judge the entire UNIX world on the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of > > Linux, because as even the Linux people are fond of pointing out, > > Linux isn't UNIX. > > > That's probably true, but it's the only realistically inexpensive route > into the UNIX world for one starting out or starting over. NetBSD/FreeBSD/OpenBSD, or about twenty different packaged distributions ("distros" for the kiddies) of Linux. All free, most of mission-critical quality. > Last time I checked, the add-on required to extend the file system > for UNIXWARE (? maybe one of the others) to larger than 2GB cost > $2K per instance. ...and the people who buy UNIXWARE get what they deserve...screwed. Support for >2GB filesystems has been standard equipment in modern free operating systems for something like eight years. What is their excuse? > > I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, and I respect your > > experience...please understand that I'm trying to point out that the > > world of computers is very different from the world of Windows > > computers...things are, well, just done differently. > > Different, is certainly the case. Better, well, the market thinks otherwise. Do you honestly think software development for pure profit, where quality suffers to enhance margins, bugs rarely get fixed, and developments in technology are largely ignored, where programmers write the bare minimum to get their paychecks and leave by 5pm, is "better" just because the suits of the world buy anything that Microsoft tries to sell them? "Better" is paying through the nose for products versus getting better stuff for free? I'll tell you what...YOU pay attention to the "market" and do what the suits tell you to do...I have work to do, and I'm going to use the best tools available...regardless of what the "market" thinks I should use. If any computer on your home network has EVER crashed, lost data, munged something, or behaved unpredictably for anything other than an age- or ac-power-related hardware failure, then my point has already been made for me. And I really, truly hope I've misinterpreted you. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

24 years

OT: Writing floppies on PC; Was Re: Guys take a look

by blacklord＠telstra.com

Hi Zane, > V1.3 to > V3.0, and one thing I always loved was how I could be formatting > both 3.5" > and 5.25" floppies while I was editing a document and dialed into > a BBS. I can still remember formatting 4 floppies at once on my Amiga 1000, slight slowdown, but not too bad :-) cheers, Lance ---------------- Powered by telstra.com

24 years

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

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On April 21, Ben Franchuk wrote: > > There is a demo version of nearly every high-cost ($2000 isn't that high, btw, > > though the Windows environment has made it so.) Get a comparable product for > > UNIX, and you'll get no improvement, nor will you get source. All you'll get > > is a bigger bill. > > LINUX != UNIX. ( But you are right ) What does that have to do with it? -Dave -- Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big." St. Petersburg, FL -Den

24 years

Network Hub selection help needed

by fernande＠internet1.net

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?? Chad Fernandez Michigan, USA

24 years

Heath Zenith in a Faraday cage, was Secret Mac

by ken＠seefried.com

Yup...I've seen plenty of Zeniths (i386 & i486 models) in Faraday cages. For that matter, I've seen a bunch of MacIIfx decked out similarly. Tempest rated boxes. My first job was with a shop (SecureWare) that did high security versions of Unix for these things. SCO-based for the Zeniths & A/UX-based for the Macs. The Unix was refered to as CMW (Compartmented Mode Workstation), was validated as a B1-level system (in Orange Book speak), and featured a secure window manager based on X (windows have security labels, and you couldn't do things like cut and paste between windows with different security labels). Pretty kewl, if you are into that sort of thing. Ken

24 years

Jump to page:

2026

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