Slashdot Mirror

How to use a TRS-80 Model 100/102 as a Linux terminal using a serial port.

is't a dupe. Not! Got proof:
./ Record Dupes.

Two words: dynamic DNS. I have paid for dns2go for my PCs on roadrunner now for a couple of years. Previous to that I had scheduled a daily AT job to email my IP addy to myself. Needless to say, this is much cleaner. Go to DNS2Go.com and check it out. There are other services out there. I run http, ftp, telnet and other servers on high ports on my main WinXP box and love reaching it by name. Save some cash, my friend!

I used to have DSL, but recently switched to cable. The DSL had a static ip, got 768kbps down and 128kbps up(in reality 600/120), and blocked no ports... Unfortunatly my ping times to that same Ultima Online server was in the area of 70-80, and in Counter-Strike had a difficult time finding a sub100ms ping server. Reliability was also a major problem.


Then I got cable. I get consistant 2200/360kbps speeds, 30ms latency to UO servers, sub50ms pings to most CS server, perfect reliability, and no blocked ports. I don't have a static ip, instead i a DNS2GO service. I don't get a top level domain name, but it's no big deal really.

That is basically why I signed onto AOL in '92. I was doing BBS stuff for music discussions and playing games like Trade Wars (Shameless plug for a Trade-Wars-Like game). I had the internet through the university. (Getting PPP to work with windows 3.1 was interesting)

Anyway, AOL, for me, was a BIGGER BBS. I could communicate with the whole country, not just my local community. The internet was something different. The internet was using Gopher to find info from another university for a paper I was writing.

After I got my first 200$ AOL bill for playing Neverwinter nights non-stop, (No, I didn't die.) I then discovered KALI, and I could play over the internet.

Now, it seems, (I haven't had AOL since 93-so I could be wrong.) AOL is just an over-glorigfied BBS that also has (ping-poor) internet access also.

"Do you think that businesses might be better off if they took a risk and tried the lower end of the costs spectrum?"

Business is all about managing risk. Applications ("business process") tend to be or be part of core functions in a business. The more widely an application is used the higher the risk if something goes wrong with it.

I think that many managers look at the 'extra' money they pay as a form of insurance.. if something goes horribly wrong with the product they can whip out the old "We paid a _lot_ of money for this product and we want it fixed _now_" line (I've been on those conference calls).

So the question becomes costs versus risk:

One guy working out of his garage with a $1,000 product. This guy could throw up his hands tomorrow and abondon the whole thing.. or get hit by a bus.

A company with 300 employees (i.e. lots of people to 'escalate' to), a reputation and a responsibilty to its shareholders to not only stay in business but to make a profit (thereby ensuring that it will/should be around for a while) selling a product with the same features for $10,000.

Which looks more attractive to a business person?? Generally the $10,000 product because you can "buy down" the risk with cash upfront.

Charles

Support Project Gutenberg! Distributed Proofreaders

What responsibility do the creators hold for evil bots?

I (a different AC than before) like to remain anonymous unless saying something I'd like quoted back to me later. Mouthing off, and so on, is more fun anonymously. For instance, if I were to say something foolish like "Until then keep your commy loving thoughts to yourself." I'd do it anonymously. I'd also spell it commie.

On a simmilar note, silly comments such as "Linux is geared for lamer troll boys that want to be cool by tatooing a linux penguin on their forehead without really thinking. I mean if Linux was so good why hasn't it crushed MS in terms of desktop users. One big reason is that Linux is not user friendly. Its designed by dorks for dorks. As soon as linux developers get their act together it will rock." on your website is also in poor judgement.

check out dns2go. Works like a champ for me, and they have a linux client.

Help out Project Gutenberg!!
Distributed Proofreaders

I don't know how many times I have searched for something and get a perfect looking search result only to find out it is a broken link. I have not used all of the search engines out there but I don't remember any of the ones that I have used having an obvious method to flag a link as broken.

I know that their spiders go through the database and verify links but I'd be willing to bet that is takes months to go over it once. Why not flag links as broken and have the spider verify/remove those first?

Just cleaning up the broken links could improve the search results.

Help out Project Gutenberg!
Distributed Proofreaders http://charlz.dns2go.com/gutenberg

Maybe I'm missing the point when it comes to SOAP and all that -- but I've yet to see a really good description of why the hell I (as a web developer) should really care. It's not like I can't communicate over the net already. This makes the communication a bit more robust, perhaps... or maybe more easily integrated. But you can put a wrapper around all the various protocols you need and get the same thing. And you can do that now, with systems that are set up now, everywhere. That's why we use real programming languages and not XML.

The website also seems to imply that NetHesive will be closed source. In other words, I care as much about it as I do about web-enabled COBOL environments. If you can get people to use it and buy it, fine. But you aren't saving anyone. You won't be part of any revolution -- there are already more than enough niche commercial web products around. Hell, there's more than enough niche OSS web products around... but they usually whither and die more quickly, leaving the space more clean.

If there's a salvation for OSS, it's in the fact that people who actually get things done will still be doing things. Hell, if 44% of attempts to purchase online failed, I don't think web services are where attention needs to be focused. A good website/service is not a commodity yet, and most of the problems aren't things SOAP/.NET/NetHesive address.