6 May
2002
6 May
'02
3:47 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex White [mailto:meltie@myrealbox.com]
UNIX as a system to use personally is only cheap if
you don't
value your
free time. (well-worn but useful quote.) Disclaimer: I only use stuff
that ain't MS at home.
I find this is the case for windows, but not Unix. I have some Unix
machines at home, which never give me any trouble. I haven't had a
problem with either system in three years that wasn't a hardware problem.
In other words, they "just work."
The system I've had for longer than three years hasn't given me any
software problems since I was messing around with experimental drivers,
and that was my own fault.
I've had hard drives die after years of continuous use (but I keep
backups...), and I've had the processor cook itself on one system when
the fan gave out, but again, that's a hardware problem.
Now, if you need a rock-solid system, rather than just a passable one,
then you can use VMS, but Unix works most of the time, and better than
windows and MacOS, in my experience. ;)
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl
Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
6 May
6 May
6:38 a.m.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Smith" <csmith(a)amdocs.com
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: APPLEVISION Monitor
That may be true, though I have questions about the relative usefulness of
*nix, VMS, etc, in the current computing environment. However, until I can
rely on being able to take the typical drug-impaired, femto-brained, at best
quasi-literate, high school graduate and setting him down in front of a *nix
box, when he's never even heard of *nix or VMS or whatever, and reasonably
expect to get at least half-a-day's work out of each day he spends at that
box, beginning with the first day, knowing that he can't read and extract
information from the process, I'll stick with Windows, thank you very much.
Even a moron can manage that under Windows.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Alex White [mailto:meltie@myrealbox.com]
UNIX as a system to use personally is only cheap
if you don't
value your
free time. (well-worn but useful quote.) Disclaimer: I only use stuff
that ain't MS at home.
I find this is the case for windows, but not Unix. I have some Unix
machines at home, which never give me any trouble. I haven't had a
problem with either system in three years that wasn't a hardware problem.
In other words, they "just work."
The system I've had for longer than three years hasn't given me any
software problems since I was messing around with experimental drivers,
and that was my own fault.
I've had hard drives die after years of continuous use (but I keep
backups...), and I've had the processor cook itself on one system when
the fan gave out, but again, that's a hardware problem.
Now, if you need a rock-solid system, rather than just a passable one,
then you can use VMS, but Unix works most of the time, and better than
windows and MacOS, in my experience. ;)
11:11 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020507/6a037a6b/at…
12:26 p.m.
Well, we're talking about the typical college graduate, not one who can read
and write.
more below...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
We're not talking about time to learn. It's just time to do that matters,
because the average guy won't show up tomorrow anyway. If he does, he won't
remember anything from today anyway.
If I want the job done today, learning in order
to do it better tomorrow does
me no good.
> That may be true, though I have questions about
the relative usefulness of
> *nix, VMS, etc, in the current computing environment. However, until I
can
> rely on being able to take the typical
drug-impaired, femto-brained, at
best
> quasi-literate, high school graduate and setting
him down in front of a
*nix
I am trying to work out why on earth you'd want to employ such a person...
Sometimes that's the best that you can get. Most of the folks you see looking
for work fit that model pretty closely.
box, when he's never even heard of *nix or
VMS or whatever, and reasonably
expect to get at least half-a-day's work out of each day he spends at that
Hmmm... Is it better to have an average of 0.5 days_work/day or to spend
a week (or so) learning the system and then have an average of 2
days_work/day (as would typically happen with an intellegent person using
Unix, VMS, etc)?
I still can't understand why people think that time taken to learn to use
powerful tools is time that's wasted.
7 May
7 May
10:54 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1153 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020507/f5bee2e3/at…
6 May
6 May
12:56 p.m.
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
That may be true, though I have questions about the
relative usefulness of
*nix, VMS, etc, in the current computing environment. However, until I can
rely on being able to take the typical drug-impaired, femto-brained, at best
quasi-literate, high school graduate and setting him down in front of a *nix
box, when he's never even heard of *nix or VMS or whatever, and reasonably
expect to get at least half-a-day's work out of each day he spends at that
box, beginning with the first day, knowing that he can't read and extract
information from the process, I'll stick with Windows, thank you very much.
Even a moron can manage that under Windows.
Um, no.
I have done software support in a Windows environment, and I have done
training of both adults and children in both Linux and Windows.
Chris's crack about finding the new document after writing it, in
Windows, was dead on. My stint as "the computer guy" in a Windows shop
was in a University of Texas research lab. Not exactly morons I was
working with. Most people think Windows is easier because that's what
they were trained in _first_. The Linux/Unix curve is steeper for them
because of the UNlearning curve.
Dick, no offense, but if you haven't used Unix since '82, or Linux
since about 2000, you don't _have_ a valid viewpoint concerning ease of
use. PTSD is not a reasonable argument in this case.
RedHat is not my favorite distribution for my own personal use, but I
have to say that it is a much easier install than a comparable Windows
setup. Effectively, on 99% of current (less than 6 yrs and more than 3
months old) hardware, it's a matter of clicking on the default choice.
After the _first_ reboot, everything from browsers to WYSIWYG word
processors are ready to use. You never have to even _see_ a commandline
unless you want. Spreadsheet (Excel-compatible, no less) apps, address
books, games, the whole 9 yards. I see 11 and 12 year old kids sit
down for the first time, ask where's the menus, and do homework, all the
time.
Doc
1:56 p.m.
Dick, no offense, but if you haven't used Unix
since '82, or Linux
since about 2000, you don't _have_ a valid viewpoint concerning ease of
use. PTSD is not a reasonable argument in this case.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROFL! Especially since I'm doing my psychiatry rotation right now. (Uh,
it's a voluntary commitment. :-)
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- Ernest Rutherford ----
4 p.m.
Hmmm ... I wonder if I can sue somebody for that ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Dick, no
offense, but if you haven't used Unix since '82, or Linux
since about 2000, you don't _have_ a valid viewpoint concerning ease of
use. PTSD is not a reasonable argument in this case.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROFL! Especially since I'm doing my psychiatry rotation right now. (Uh,
it's a voluntary commitment. :-)
--
----------------------------- personal page: Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University *
ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
-- Ernest
Rutherford ----
3:27 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> That may be true, though I have questions about the relative usefulness of
> *nix, VMS, etc, in the current computing environment. However, until I
can
> rely on being able to take the typical
drug-impaired, femto-brained, at
best
> quasi-literate, high school graduate and setting
him down in front of a
*nix
> box, when he's never even heard of *nix or
VMS or whatever, and reasonably
> expect to get at least half-a-day's work out of each day he spends at that
> box, beginning with the first day, knowing that he can't read and extract
> information from the process, I'll stick with Windows, thank you very
much.
Even a moron
can manage that under Windows.
Um, no. I have done software support in a Windows
environment, and I have done
training of both adults and children in both Linux and Windows.
Chris's crack about finding the new document after
writing it, in
Windows, was dead on. My stint as "the computer guy" in a Windows shop
was in a University of Texas research lab. Not exactly morons I was
working with. Most people think Windows is easier because that's what
they were trained in _first_. The Linux/Unix curve is steeper for them
because of the UNlearning curve.
Dick, no offense, but if you haven't used Unix
since '82, or Linux
since about 2000, you don't _have_ a valid viewpoint concerning ease of
use. PTSD is not a reasonable argument in this case.
I used HPUX in the interim, and, of course a half-dozen dialects of Unix at
the POP. The place my confidence in the thing falls apart is in the
documentation. There is a Linux Documentation Project that seems to lag about
5 generations behind the "current" versions (not the betas).
RedHat is not my favorite distribution for my own
personal use, but I
have to say that it is a much easier install than a comparable Windows
setup. Effectively, on 99% of current (less than 6 yrs and more than 3
months old) hardware, it's a matter of clicking on the default choice.
I don't see how it could be any easier to install than Win98. I just put the
CD in the drive and reset the machine. Then I go away, to lunch, perhaps, and
when I'm back the drive is freshly formatted as a single partition under FAT32
and the OS is completely installed, the drivers in place, the modem ready to
align with the internet parameters it wants (server names, addresses, etc) and
then I can install applications. If I don't want the HDD reformatted, I have
to stay long enough to tell it not to do that. It looks to see what the
hardware is and installs the appropriate drivers. It builds its own swap
file.
Nevertheless, I can grab what's on the various sites. We do have a few T3's
after all.
After the _first_ reboot, everything from browsers to
WYSIWYG word
processors are ready to use. You never have to even _see_ a commandline
unless you want. Spreadsheet (Excel-compatible, no less) apps, address
books, games, the whole 9 yards. I see 11 and 12 year old kids sit
down for the first time, ask where's the menus, and do homework, all the
time.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't mind a command line at all.
Much of my editing is done in WordStar. ( I like to be able to prune out
columns, and few text editors allow that.) Almost everything I do with
respect to hardware development and testing is done on a DOS-only box.
I recognize that there are some pretty decent Linux based cross-compilers and
simulators, not to mention cross-assemblers and debuggers. I just don't want
to have to learn to parse cryptic gibberish like what was presented as a
"cute" example by one of the script kiddies demonstrating his prowess at perl
or whatever. I just don't have time to try to impress somebody else. I just
want to get the work out.
I haven't had a Windows crash resulting in a data loss except for one recent
occasion where my elder son presented me with a diskette that had been in one
of the computers at school. Thank goodness for backups, however burdensome
they may be!
I have only fired nine people in my entire carreer, and six of those were on
the same occasion for putting a diskette in one of our machines after having
it on a school campus. I don't even allow diskettes that have been in the
trunk of a car at a school campus in my lab ... and then my own kid, who was
present when I fired those guys, does it to me. <sigh>
So which version/release of Linux do you hold in highest esteem? Why? What
are its strengths? Has it any annoying weaknesses?
Dick
6:17 p.m.
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I don't see how it could be any easier to install
than Win98. I just put the
CD in the drive and reset the machine. Then I go away, to lunch, perhaps, and
when I'm back the drive is freshly formatted as a single partition under FAT32
and the OS is completely installed, the drivers in place, the modem ready to
align with the internet parameters it wants (server names, addresses, etc) and
then I can install applications. If I don't want the HDD reformatted, I have
to stay long enough to tell it not to do that. It looks to see what the
hardware is and installs the appropriate drivers. It builds its own swap
file.
This I have trouble swallowing. I do have to install Windows
98, and 98SE, regularly, and as far as I'm aware there is no walk-away
install written/scripted [1]. You have to partition your drive, unless
it's prepartitioned, you choose your install type, etc, etc.
And you seem to have missed the fact that when the Linux install is
done, *** the applications are in place ***. RH, which was my example,
can automatically partition & format your drive. All hardware is
autodetected - except your mouse [2] - and configured. There are several
fill-in-the-blanks ISP config tools. The GUI interface is configured.
And, most likely, everything else.
[1] RedHat, and I believe SuSE, offer true walkaway install scripts.
From a RH box, you can use a GUI point&click
interface to set up a boot
floppy that will install exactly what you want, How you
want it. Insert
floppy, turn on power, go away for ~25 minutes, come back, remove
floppy, reboot. Gorgeous.
Nevertheless, I can grab what's on the various
sites. We do have a few T3's
after all.
I haven't seen RH 7.3 yet, which I think released today. Meaning all
their mirrors will be hammered for a week. V7.2 is sweet.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't mind
a command line at all.
Much of my editing is done in WordStar. ( I like to be able to prune out
columns, and few text editors allow that.) Almost everything I do with
respect to hardware development and testing is done on a DOS-only box.
I don't "believe" anything, necessarily. The fact that you're here
at
all would tend to contraindicate CLI-phobia.
I recognize that there are some pretty decent Linux
based cross-compilers and
simulators, not to mention cross-assemblers and debuggers. I just don't want
to have to learn to parse cryptic gibberish like what was presented as a
"cute" example by one of the script kiddies demonstrating his prowess at perl
or whatever. I just don't have time to try to impress somebody else. I just
want to get the work out.
I'm not a "l337 Linux D00D" I don't do perl, or C, for that matter.
I'm OK at scripting, and a hell of a troubleshooter. A large part of my
job is using Linux & Unix boxen to help Windows boxes communicate
safely. My desktop box at home runs Linux. I check my email, do
research, watch movies, listen to CD's, do my books, and write the
documentation I can't avoid on it. I've found that all that happens
very easily in Linux.
I haven't had a Windows crash resulting in a data
loss except for one recent
occasion where my elder son presented me with a diskette that had been in one
of the computers at school. Thank goodness for backups, however burdensome
they may be!
I'm not even going into the virus situation.
So which version/release of Linux do you hold in
highest esteem? Why? What
are its strengths? Has it any annoying weaknesses?
Debian. If I want to do something, and the command isn't there, I
type "apt-cache search <keyword>" Apt, the software manager, returns a
list of packages whose descriptions contain the keyword. If I see what
I want, and I usually do, I type "apt-get install <name-of-package>" and
it is so. Located, downloaded, installed and configured. If there are
config options, they are presented in a clear, well-explained dialog.
If I want to upgrade an existing packeage, same command. Apt goes out,
looks for a newer release, gets it, installs it. Or, "apt-get
dist-upgrade" does same for every package installed.
It has the most godawful package selection interface - dselect - in
Creation. "Tasksel", the alternative, and the commandline tools are
fairly straightforward and easy, but dselect has frightened away many a
prospective Debianista.
Debian has a rep for being the "hackers' distro", and for being very
raw. It does take more work initially to bring up a Debian install.
After that, it's a no-brainer. Everything is done.
The truth is, I like RedHat, if anybody besides me has root or
"elevated" privileges. It's as close to a Universal Distribution as
there is. And it has KickStart.
I do Linux training, and a lot of it is on RedHat, so when I
say it's easy to use, install and learn, I'm not talking through my hat.
Doc
8:59 p.m.
I just started the procedure a few mintues ago and it does, indeed require you
tell it to partition your drive, but now that it's on its way, its automatic,
i.e. it should do the rest by itself, using all the default settings. (I
think ... If I'm wrong, I'll know pretty soon, since its only formatting a
small drive).
Well, it does require one tell it not to name the partition when it's done
formatting. I guess the last one (I don't have to do this often) must have
been formatted already. In that case, at a friend's house, I started the
process from the CD and then helped him change a tire. When we were done so
was the computer, IIRC. That was on one of those $239 666 MHz eTowers that
were spammed to the list. I was involved with several of them. They were an
excellent buy for $239, with a DVD, 256 MB, 20GB HDD, modem, sound, video, all
built in. The install went slicker'n snot on a doorknob.
What I find odd, however, is that the setup when booting the install cd, is
that it doesn't ask for the product key at the same point in the process as
one would ordinarily expect. Normally, when I install on a blank HDD, I
expect it to ask for the product key early in the process before "copying
files" to the HDD. In this case, it waits until after the install is more or
less complete, and then only after doing all the plug-n-pray stuff and setting
up the drivers and control panel, does it get around to asking for the product
key. Bizarre!
Last time I went through the Linux cycle, I did it with RedHat v4, "Open
Linux," Linux Pro, and Slackware. All those had been sent to me gratis, and I
tried 'em all, but was pretty focused on getting the MARS NWE to work, which
it didn't, so I punted 'em all after failing to make sense of the documents
and running in to several self-contradictions.
Maybe it's time to take another look.
Back in the '80's the problem with the Mac was that there were few
applications, and later on, when there were a few, the system viewed as a
whole was entirely too costly and restrictive. It had no bus for use in
hardware work, (it was before the II came out), so I stuck with the PC. The
PC allows you to do a lot. Of course, a PC with Linux would do the same, and,
possibly, more conveniently. Once I get a better "feel" for what can be done
with a Mac, I'll decide where they'll fit in the scheme of things. I've
often
lamented that they are so limited, since they're much more available at little
cost than PC's. Of course, I haven't seen a Mac in an office in years. They
were once popular in the desktop publishing business, but I don't see 'em
there anymore. I passed up an 8800 PowerMac the other day because they wanted
$15 for it with no keyboard or whatever. I might have risked it, but it
looked as though it might have been abused.
How would a Mac do at running Linux or the like?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
T3's
and
recent
What
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> I don't see how it could be any easier to install than Win98. I just put
the
> CD in the drive and reset the machine. Then I go
away, to lunch, perhaps,
and
> when I'm back the drive is freshly formatted
as a single partition under
FAT32
> and the OS is completely installed, the drivers
in place, the modem ready
to
> align with the internet parameters it wants
(server names, addresses, etc)
and
> then I can install applications. If I don't
want the HDD reformatted, I
have
to stay long
enough to tell it not to do that. It looks to see what the
hardware is and installs the appropriate drivers. It builds its own swap
file.
This I have trouble swallowing. I do have to install Windows
98, and 98SE, regularly, and as far as I'm aware there is no walk-away
install written/scripted [1]. You have to partition your drive, unless
it's prepartitioned, you choose your install type, etc, etc.
And you seem to have missed the fact that when the Linux install is
done, *** the applications are in place ***. RH, which was my example,
can automatically partition & format your drive. All hardware is
autodetected - except your mouse [2] - and configured. There are several
fill-in-the-blanks ISP config tools. The GUI interface is configured.
And, most likely, everything else.
[1] RedHat, and I believe SuSE, offer true walkaway install scripts.
From a RH box, you can use a GUI point&click interface to set up a boot
floppy that will install exactly what you want, How you want it. Insert
floppy, turn on power, go away for ~25 minutes, come back, remove
floppy, reboot. Gorgeous.
> Nevertheless, I can grab what's on the various sites. We do have a few
after all.
I haven't seen RH 7.3 yet, which I think released today. Meaning all
their mirrors will be hammered for a week. V7.2 is sweet.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't
mind a command line at all.
Much of my editing is done in WordStar. ( I like to be able to prune out
columns, and few text editors allow that.) Almost everything I do with
respect to hardware development and testing is done on a DOS-only box.
I don't "believe" anything, necessarily. The fact that you're here
at
all would tend to contraindicate CLI-phobia.
> I recognize that there are some pretty decent Linux based cross-compilers > simulators, not to mention cross-assemblers and
debuggers. I just don't
want
> to have to learn to parse cryptic gibberish like
what was presented as a
> "cute" example by one of the script kiddies demonstrating his prowess at
perl
> or whatever. I just don't have time to try
to impress somebody else. I
just
want to get
the work out.
I'm not a "l337 Linux D00D" I don't do perl, or C, for that matter.
I'm OK at scripting, and a hell of a troubleshooter. A large part of my
job is using Linux & Unix boxen to help Windows boxes communicate
safely. My desktop box at home runs Linux. I check my email, do
research, watch movies, listen to CD's, do my books, and write the
documentation I can't avoid on it. I've found that all that happens
very easily in Linux.
> I haven't had a Windows crash resulting in a data loss except for one
> occasion where my elder son presented me with a
diskette that had been in
one
> of the computers at school. Thank goodness for
backups, however
burdensome
they may be!
I'm not even going into the virus situation.
> So which version/release of Linux do you hold in highest esteem? Why? are its
strengths? Has it any annoying weaknesses?
Debian. If I want to do something, and the command isn't there, I
type "apt-cache search <keyword>" Apt, the software manager, returns a
list of packages whose descriptions contain the keyword. If I see what
I want, and I usually do, I type "apt-get install <name-of-package>" and
it is so. Located, downloaded, installed and configured. If there are
config options, they are presented in a clear, well-explained dialog.
If I want to upgrade an existing packeage, same command. Apt goes out,
looks for a newer release, gets it, installs it. Or, "apt-get
dist-upgrade" does same for every package installed.
It has the most godawful package selection interface - dselect - in
Creation. "Tasksel", the alternative, and the commandline tools are
fairly straightforward and easy, but dselect has frightened away many a
prospective Debianista.
Debian has a rep for being the "hackers' distro", and for being very
raw. It does take more work initially to bring up a Debian install.
After that, it's a no-brainer. Everything is done.
The truth is, I like RedHat, if anybody besides me has root or
"elevated" privileges. It's as close to a Universal Distribution as
there is. And it has KickStart.
I do Linux training, and a lot of it is on RedHat, so when I
say it's easy to use, install and learn, I'm not talking through my hat.
Doc
7 May
7 May
2:07 a.m.
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I just started the procedure a few mintues ago and it
does, indeed require you
tell it to partition your drive, but now that it's on its way, its automatic,
i.e. it should do the rest by itself, using all the default settings. (I
think ... If I'm wrong, I'll know pretty soon, since its only formatting a
small drive).
Not my experience at all. How do you get past the clockset, type of
install, and all that?
Well, it does require one tell it not to name the
partition when it's done
formatting. I guess the last one (I don't have to do this often) must have
been formatted already. In that case, at a friend's house, I started the
process from the CD and then helped him change a tire. When we were done so
was the computer, IIRC. That was on one of those $239 666 MHz eTowers that
were spammed to the list. I was involved with several of them. They were an
excellent buy for $239, with a DVD, 256 MB, 20GB HDD, modem, sound, video, all
built in. The install went slicker'n snot on a doorknob.
I've repaired a bunch of those boxes. All that hardware and a 90W
PSU.... Plus, the 350-500MHz were K6-2 processors, installed with a
very cheap heatsink & fan, and no thermal goo whatsoever. Can you say
random crash?
Last time I went through the Linux cycle, I did it
with RedHat v4, "Open
Linux," Linux Pro, and Slackware. All those had been sent to me gratis, and I
tried 'em all, but was pretty focused on getting the MARS NWE to work, which
it didn't, so I punted 'em all after failing to make sense of the documents
and running in to several self-contradictions.
Maybe it's time to take another look.
Yup. Comparing RedHat v7.2 to RedHat v4.2 (first RH I tried) is like
comparing Windows 2000 to NT v3.1. You _will_ probably have to do some
research if you want to run Novell services. If you are just a client,
it'll be pretty easy.
How would a Mac do at running Linux or the like?
Well, the SE/30 is running Apple's original Unix - A/UX.
My LC 475 runs mklinux (slowly), my 4400/200 (aka Starmax) is pretty
snappy in Yellowdog Linux. My newer 8500 is fixing to get Xed - Mac OS
X is unix-based.
Doc
4:28 a.m.
I wasn't aware of that ... the one's I fiddled with all had Celerons.
The guys who have 'em are still smiling.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
have
and I
That's where my previous ventures into the Linux world fell apart, because the
documentation and the behavior/messages I saw from the software didn't even
remotely align. The need for Netware compatibility arises from the DOS
applications I use every day. They won't run with a driver the size of what
most network shells compatible with SMB or NFS, etc, require. They will,
barely, run with the Netware shell. That's a deal-breaker, though, since
networking that won't allow the DOS app's I use to work on the LAN is quite
useless to me.
The earliest I used was NT3.51.
> > How would a Mac do at running Linux or
the like?
> Well, the SE/30 is running Apple's
original Unix - A/UX.
> My LC 475 runs mklinux (slowly), my 4400/200 (aka Starmax) is pretty
> snappy in Yellowdog Linux. My newer 8500 is fixing to get Xed - Mac OS
> X is unix-based.
> Doc
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> I just started the procedure a few mintues ago and it does, indeed require
you
> tell it to partition your drive, but now that
it's on its way, its
automatic,
i.e. it should
do the rest by itself, using all the default settings. (I
think ... If I'm wrong, I'll know pretty soon, since its only formatting a
small drive).
Not my experience at all. How do you get past the clockset, type of
install, and all that?
> Well, it does require one tell it not to name the partition when it's done
> formatting. I guess the last one (I don't have to do this often) must
> been formatted already. In that case, at a
friend's house, I started the
> process from the CD and then helped him change a tire. When we were done
so
> was the computer, IIRC. That was on one of those
$239 666 MHz eTowers
that
> were spammed to the list. I was involved with
several of them. They were
an
> excellent buy for $239, with a DVD, 256 MB, 20GB
HDD, modem, sound, video,
all
built in. The
install went slicker'n snot on a doorknob.
I've repaired a bunch of those boxes. All that hardware and a 90W
PSU.... Plus, the 350-500MHz were K6-2 processors, installed with a
very cheap heatsink & fan, and no thermal goo whatsoever. Can you say
random crash?
> Last time I went through the Linux cycle, I did it with RedHat v4, "Open
> Linux," Linux Pro, and Slackware. All those had been sent to me gratis,
> tried 'em all, but was pretty focused on
getting the MARS NWE to work,
which
> it didn't, so I punted 'em all after
failing to make sense of the
documents
and running in
to several self-contradictions.
Maybe it's time to take another look.
Yup. Comparing RedHat v7.2 to RedHat v4.2 (first RH I tried) is like
comparing Windows 2000 to NT v3.1. You _will_ probably have to do some
research if you want to run Novell services. If you are just a client,
it'll be pretty easy.
2:13 a.m.
Doc wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
It has the most godawful package selection interface - dselect - in
Creation. "Tasksel", the alternative, and the commandline tools are
fairly straightforward and easy, but dselect has frightened away many a
prospective Debianista.
Debian has a rep for being the "hackers' distro", and for being very
raw. It does take more work initially to bring up a Debian install.
After that, it's a no-brainer. Everything is done.
The truth is, I like RedHat, if anybody besides me has root or
"elevated" privileges. It's as close to a Universal Distribution as
there is. And it has KickStart.
I do Linux training, and a lot of it is on RedHat, so when I
say it's easy to use, install and learn, I'm not talking through my hat.
Doc
But like I have said Debian lets you install from a modem, Red Hat
does not. The big advantage of linux is that you can back up the
system. The disadvantage is that you can't run games or some software.
What pisses me off is the fact that both systems use dynamic libraries.
This makes a real mess of things. I liked dos -- you have a program
it runs from the .exe non of this you need version blah blah blah ...
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
2:40 a.m.
New subject: DOS "libraries" (was APPLEVISION Monitor)
And thusly Ben Franchuk spake:
What pisses me off is the fact that both systems use dynamic libraries.
This makes a real mess of things. I liked dos -- you have a program
it runs from the .exe non of this you need version blah blah blah ...
DOS sometimes needed library files - take 32-bit protected mode. You need to
have a DOS extender file in the path or directory of the executable.
Cheers,
Bryan
8:32 a.m.
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 08:13:37AM -0600, Ben Franchuk wrote:
Doc wrote:
Can't run games on Linux? Then all those hours I wasted playing 3D games
like RTCW, Quake3 Arena, Kohan, Rune, Urban Terror and friends on my
Linux system here were just a machination of my fantasy? I don't think
so. The "no games on Linux" rap is old - but since quite some time it's
simply false.
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
It has the most godawful package selection interface - dselect - in
Creation. "Tasksel", the alternative, and the commandline tools are
fairly straightforward and easy, but dselect has frightened away many a
prospective Debianista.
Debian has a rep for being the "hackers' distro", and for being very
raw. It does take more work initially to bring up a Debian install.
After that, it's a no-brainer. Everything is done.
The truth is, I like RedHat, if anybody besides me has root or
"elevated" privileges. It's as close to a Universal Distribution as
there is. And it has KickStart.
I do Linux training, and a lot of it is on RedHat, so when I
say it's easy to use, install and learn, I'm not talking through my hat.
Doc
But like I have said Debian lets you install from a modem, Red Hat
does not. The big advantage of linux is that you can back up the
system. The disadvantage is that you can't run games or some software. What pisses me off is the fact that both systems use
dynamic libraries.
This makes a real mess of things.
This is actually a _huge_ advantage. Try linking some commonly used
Linux programs - one time dynamically, one time statically. It's _huge_
difference. For example, take bash2 (default (and most popular) shell
under Linux), Version bash 2.05a:
- dynamically linked, not stripped: 1675923 bytes
- dynamically linked, stripped (debug info thrown out): 534428 bytes,
- statically linked, not stripped: 2096430 bytes
- statically linked, stripped: 907092 bytes
So, we are talking a twofold increase in binary size, which results not
only in the resulting binary eating twice as much diskspace, but also
twice as much memory for text pages during runtime.
The dynamic version is linked against (here):
- libncurses.so.5 (terminal handling): 248132 bytes
- libdl.so.2: 8008 bytes
- libc.so.6 (C runtime library): 1153816 bytes
- /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (Linux dynalinker): 90210 bytes
Using dynamic linking is one of the great steps in software technology.
Not only can you gather the most commonly used routines in _one_ place
(instead of scattering them repeatedly over every binary), you also can
maintain them separately from the binaries. Which also helps system
security: a security critical bug in a library routine? Fix the code,
exchange the library, all programs vulnerable to this bug and
dynamically linked against the library are instantly fixed - the
statically linked ones have to be recompiled and if you don't have the
source code to them ... you're screwed.
Regards,
Alex.
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one. -- Benjamin Franklin
6 May
6 May
11:27 p.m.
New subject: Unix
On Tues, 7 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
Absolutely! Man pages for the GNU stuff sucks. The updates aren't
documented completely in the man pages and they want to replace nice
simple man pages with texinfo.
Which is why I'm running FreeBSD instead. The man pages are accurate
and the FreeBSD handbook is great. The fact is Linux has more eye-candy
and such, but if you're looking for commercial-Unix-like documentation
and stability the BSD varients are a lot more professional feeling.
And I'm a Linux sysadmin almost full time at work... at home it's
FreeBSD i4got.pechter.dyndns.org 4.6-PRERELEASE.
I've got the system auto-upgrading from source code weekly fixing any bugs
without any intervention from me. The security is pretty good.
For example someone in Australia may have tried to rattle the door yesterday,
or was a victim of the dynamic ip address change fun...:
May 6 07:49:31 i4got inetd[7541]: refused connection from janush.lnk.telstra.net, service
ftpd (tcp)
May 6 07:49:31 i4got inetd[7541]: refused connection from janush.lnk.telstra.net, service
ftpd (tcp)
And FreeBSD runs almost all the Linux i386 stuff unmodified and they're
adding SVR4 and Solarisx86 as well.
Bill
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I used HPUX in the interim, and, of course a half-dozen dialects of Unix at
the POP. The place my confidence in the thing falls apart is in the
documentation. There is a Linux Documentation Project that seems to lag about
5 generations behind the "current" versions (not the betas).
8311
days inactive
8312
days old
16 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
als＠thangorodrim.de -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
csmith＠amdocs.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
pechter＠pechter.dyndns.org -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu