So you can't spam them if you don't like agreeing to something you didn't agree to?
...and you can't look up their e-mail address in whois if you plan to spam them anyhow?
That's no fun...
Re:WANTED! 8086 to run Windows 1.0!
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 2
It's easy to run Windows 1.0 even on a modern computer. Just remember to use setver, because older versions of Windows need to think they're using MS-DOS 3.20 or so.
Try something like this:
SETVER WIN100.BIN 3.20
It runs on my machine under DOSEmu, and it'll also run under a DOS box in Windows. Incidentally, the file format for write was essentially the same back then...
Re:Linux this, Linux that
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 2
That's a good point. My computer is 18 months old, and it's nowhere near that nice. In fact, I'll probably end up buying a computer like that in another 6 months or more, and it'll be about the same, although probably with a faster processor.
However, in 6 months, shouldn't you be running Windows 2000?;)
Which games does it not run? I'm sure SPACEWAR would be a little fast.:)
You could try using BOCHS to emulate a slow x86, it does a good job of that. DOSEMU runs a lot of stuff too, and there are DOS programs that simulate having a slower computer. Also, there are free interpreters for the old INFOCOM data files, and now there's something like that for some of the old Sierra games.
However, none of these are really good substitutes for just having an older computer lying around.:)
ELKS runs on 286es or lower, but it isn't production. I don't know about the *BSD's (I doubt it) but minix also runs on old x86 machines. In fact, that's where Linux originally started, essentially bootstrapped from minix.
However, I'll tell you now: feel free to try it out, but it is by no means production-level stuff. It will boot, and it will run, but it doesn't run very well. I haven't tried it lately though. But minix on an 8088 absolutely sucks!:)
Re:Linux this, Linux that
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 2
Maybe because:
(a) You aren't the editor.
(b) There aren't any "bitchin' DOS desktops". (I like DOS, but desktop is associated with GUI... Maybe if you ran GEOS on it.:)
(c) A 486 makes a lousy Windows '98 desktop.
(d) A lot of people on Slashdot like and use Linux. (in case you haven't noticed.)
(e) Try some advocacy. Maybe if you've done it, mention that you can run minix on a 286 or FreeBSD on a 486, and tell us how it runs.
I have an 'old' Pentium 133, and a 286. Experiment with them. Use them for terminals. Install different operating systems on them. I got my ZIP-drive working on the 286, which is great when the only other removable storage on there is 5+1/4" floppies...
Past that, cluster them, and ultimately see if they can be sold, junked or recycled.
They used that where I was working too... My question is, why can't you make and write an image with dd, and make that one floppy a free linux boot disk? I don't see what ghost does that's so special...
Is anyone surprised that the very people who are being censored are complaining? Gee, when the Nazis were killing Jews, why didn't the German soldiers complain? Maybe because they weren't next...
If a movie is rated R, there's no reason for a theater to deny people who are 17. If they do that, then they should (a) have rated the movie NC-17 or X, or (b) prepare for angry phone calls, letters, and lawsuits, and people talking about freedom of speech.
Any arguments?
Incidentally, I'm 21, I saw Eyes Wide Shut, and I thought it should have been (a) uncensored and (b) rated X for nudity and adult situations. I don't think they'd show A Clockwork Orange in theaters today either, and I don't think Southpark or American Pie are even in the same category... if Eyes Wide Shut is rated R, they should be rated PG or PG-13.
You don't have to publish your enhancements if you release binary-only kernel modules, and I wouldn't put it past Caldera to do so. If they had a spotless track record, I wouldn't fuss about it.
I agree that Linux wasn't designed for embedded work, but since it has such massive driver support, such a decent programming environment, can run on a 386 (which is very cheap...) and gives out the source, it's an immediate candidate for a high-end embedded machine.
I'm not convinced that anyone would want to use it for a smart toaster. For trying to put a "real" OS on anything less than a 386, you might as well use DOS, or Minix, or fund development in ELKS... However, I fail to see why most people would want to do this in the first place.
The other consideration is that the Linux kernel has gotten a little memory hungry compared to previous incarnations. I don't know how stripped down you could make it, but there's a lot of code that could be left out in your average embedded system. (only use romfs for a filesystem, don't need a terminal or any extraneous peripherals, etc., etc.) However, I'd still want to have 8MB of RAM, or something to swap to, failing that.
I'd hope that a properly written application could only use a fixed amount of memory, but of course it depends on what you're doing. Any memory leaks in the system will always have to be fixed...
More Linux is good, but I'm not convinced that Caldera is. I hate press releases.
For example, if they're bringing us a low-cost, Unixish solution, what do we have already? A *free* Unixish solution...
If they're bringing us the ability to make embedded solutions, then what do all those car MP3 players already run on? Hmm... Linux, maybe?
Maybe I'd believe them if "OpenLinux" was an Open version of Linux, instead of something more like what the Open Group would do if they got their hands on Linux.
Now, I know that companies add enhancements into the OS, but do they have to *sell* them, without source? Hmm? That's why I like Red Hat. As well as funding development, they don't charge as much for what they also release for free, either...
Gee, at this rate, we can buy a Linux portfolio of funds... I'll just wait until I can "buy Linux" as a mutual fund or something. Maybe a Penguin family of funds?
At this rate, we should have it in a year or two, about when we achieve world domination for the next eon or so.;)
My first computer was a C64, but I didn't know enough back then to tinker with it on that level.
I don't solder, but I do read the assembler output from compilers. It's instructive, but no programming teacher in the world would pass me if I wrote code like that... (well, I just knew where the memory was allocated, so I used it, and I knew what the offset was, what's wrong with that? Oh, and those jumps and increments work just like a for loop, what's the problem, really?)
This sounds really neat, but... It should be ready in 5-10 years, and it can store 800 times the data. Hmm. Gee, this sounds like what we can expect from normal exponential growth, eh?
It sounds like Red Hat is being really open and honest about their IPO, which probably isn't what the suits expect.:)
It's true that they aren't the only game in town, and they've been very good about funding R&D. It sounds like they're going to do that still, and try to grow, which would make them a huge distributor, as long as Linux continues to gain in popularity, and they hold onto their marketshare.
Redhat Linux 6.0 is already a superior product compared to Windows, (I'll love to see it when it stabilizes... 6.1, anyone?) and if the corporations buy the more expensive versions, they're going to get a lot of income.
Remember, many big corporations post losses. It isn't a sign of weakness, and sometimes it's expected. In fact, if you lose *less* than expected in quarterly earnings, don't be surprised if your stock goes up.:)
I want to get in on this as soon as I can, because of my faith in Red Hat, but if it weren't for that, I'd wait for it to drop, and then... buy a decent-sized chunk of it. Individual stocks are risky, but I like this company.
The old Borland is back, I was wondering what was going to happen when they changed to Inprise...
I don't know the legalities of this, but I just downloaded the zip files for TP 5.5 and TC 2.01. My advice for distribution (for personal use, of course...) is to unzip these without expanding the directories (just use pkunzip, if you have it), install it (since the filenames are unique, it won't look for the other disks... nice feature, that) and then archive the installation with a real archiver like RAR. I did this, and they both fit on a 1.44MB disk, with some room left over (enough for a copy of rar, say.:). Now I'm going to bring it home, and install it.
Why, you say? Well, it's a perfectly good, free DOS development environment. If you ever wanted to back-port something to DOS, or compile something with Borland extensions, here's an easy answer. They both run flawlessly under DOSEmu, as far as I can tell, so my Linux-only environment is safe. And they're free. If anyone asks you, Borland gave it to you.:)
Also, I have a lot of old Pascal code I've been porting for sentimental reasons. It'll be interesting to compare this. If I remember correctly, TP5.5 started supporting OOP in Pascal, which I loved. (TP7.0 did it right, but TP5.5 started it, I think) However, I just got a copy of the new version of Free Pascal, and it looks like it might do a good job under Linux... I'll have to compare it to my own porting efforts. (I've got my old graphics libraries working in C and SVGALIB now, I got plasma and color-cycling to work, so I'm happy...:)
Let's settle this silly SMP debate once and for all: get one of these machines to run NT and Linux (or swap out hard drives, I don't care how it's done as long as it's fair...) and test SMP. Preferably with the same applications, but whatever measures of SMP performance that can be done on both NT and Linux... (of course Povray, maybe web serving or whatever apps are sexy this week...)
I know that Linux doesn't have some of the cool features that IRIX does, but it should soundly whip NT, since NT 5 *might* have some of the essential features that UNIX has had forever... (note to dissenters: sure, I'll give you examples if you like...)
Oh, I know that much, and I don't agree with that either, but remember that even if you are 18, you still don't have your full rights as long as you are still in school.
It doesn't matter if you're an adult or not, as long as you're in a high school, and probably a college as well, you waive some of your (more important) adult rights. Why? I don't know, but I'd love to see people fight it.
Heck, it doesn't matter if you're in college or not, they'll still try to censor your newspapers and restrict the content you see. They just have less of a legal basis to do so...
Mostly, I like the ability to get rid of ad banners (which is what it was designed for) and filter cookies. But you can configure it to deny specific sites and censor pages by keywords, and that is a good start.
I guess the more annoying step is to make sure that the user can't kill the proxy, or run the proxy on some other machine and allow no other access to the web...
Not that I'm in favor of censorware, but I also am not in favor of ads, or poorly written software...
Ooo, maybe we should let people decide what content they should view, after all, at least some popular censorware does a worse job than they would, themselves...
Actually, your average elementary school student either has no concept of "porn", or is disgusted by it. And if they aren't, is that so bad? Maybe they're just a little ahead of their time...
Which brings us to our third point. Let's look at a scenario here.
1) User: I want to go to www.foo.com. 2) Stupid Proxy: www.foo.com is blocked. Sorry. 3) User: Why? I want to see it. 4) Stupid Proxy: Sorry, www.foo.com is blocked. 5) User: Well, I'll just find another way to get there, then, I really need to see that. 6) Stupid Proxy: ??? 7) User: There, see, I knew it was okay.
Now, I'm all in favor of teaching children how to *hack* at an early age, I just find it pitiful when you have to do that to get *work* done. I had to in High School, because of the excessive, draconian security measures. I wasn't really popular with the computer administrators, but I could save my files to a disk, or use a DOS command if I wanted to, and that's what counted.
Where does it say in the Constitution, that students or children aren't people, and therefore don't deserve those basic rights that everyone else has?...that's what I thought. And we know that the extreme right wing moral majority is all in favor of the Constitution, and at least the Second Amendment... why not the First Amendment?
My advice: if you don't like the First Amendment, then shut up.:)
Slashdot Mirror
So you can't spam them if you don't like agreeing to something you didn't agree to?
...and you can't look up their e-mail address in whois if you plan to spam them anyhow?
That's no fun...
It's easy to run Windows 1.0 even on a modern computer. Just remember to use setver, because older versions of Windows need to think they're using MS-DOS 3.20 or so.
Try something like this:
SETVER WIN100.BIN 3.20
It runs on my machine under DOSEmu, and it'll also run under a DOS box in Windows. Incidentally, the file format for write was essentially the same back then...
That's a good point. My computer is 18 months old, and it's nowhere near that nice. In fact, I'll probably end up buying a computer like that in another 6 months or more, and it'll be about the same, although probably with a faster processor.
;)
However, in 6 months, shouldn't you be running Windows 2000?
Which games does it not run? I'm sure SPACEWAR would be a little fast. :)
:)
You could try using BOCHS to emulate a slow x86, it does a good job of that. DOSEMU runs a lot of stuff too, and there are DOS programs that simulate having a slower computer. Also, there are free interpreters for the old INFOCOM data files, and now there's something like that for some of the old Sierra games.
However, none of these are really good substitutes for just having an older computer lying around.
ELKS runs on 286es or lower, but it isn't production. I don't know about the *BSD's (I doubt it) but minix also runs on old x86 machines. In fact, that's where Linux originally started, essentially bootstrapped from minix.
:)
However, I'll tell you now: feel free to try it out, but it is by no means production-level stuff. It will boot, and it will run, but it doesn't run very well. I haven't tried it lately though. But minix on an 8088 absolutely sucks!
Maybe because:
:)
(a) You aren't the editor.
(b) There aren't any "bitchin' DOS desktops". (I like DOS, but desktop is associated with GUI... Maybe if you ran GEOS on it.
(c) A 486 makes a lousy Windows '98 desktop.
(d) A lot of people on Slashdot like and use Linux. (in case you haven't noticed.)
(e) Try some advocacy. Maybe if you've done it, mention that you can run minix on a 286 or FreeBSD on a 486, and tell us how it runs.
I have an 'old' Pentium 133, and a 286. Experiment with them. Use them for terminals. Install different operating systems on them. I got my ZIP-drive working on the 286, which is great when the only other removable storage on there is 5+1/4" floppies...
Past that, cluster them, and ultimately see if they can be sold, junked or recycled.
They used that where I was working too... My question is, why can't you make and write an image with dd, and make that one floppy a free linux boot disk? I don't see what ghost does that's so special...
Oh, so it's popular, so we don't need to rate it on content?
:)
I understand your argument, and I think you're right, but I don't think it would hold up to any serious legal test. (Fortunately.
Is anyone surprised that the very people who are being censored are complaining? Gee, when the Nazis were killing Jews, why didn't the German soldiers complain? Maybe because they weren't next...
If a movie is rated R, there's no reason for a theater to deny people who are 17. If they do that, then they should (a) have rated the movie NC-17 or X, or (b) prepare for angry phone calls, letters, and lawsuits, and people talking about freedom of speech.
Any arguments?
Incidentally, I'm 21, I saw Eyes Wide Shut, and I thought it should have been (a) uncensored and (b) rated X for nudity and adult situations. I don't think they'd show A Clockwork Orange in theaters today either, and I don't think Southpark or American Pie are even in the same category... if Eyes Wide Shut is rated R, they should be rated PG or PG-13.
You don't have to publish your enhancements if you release binary-only kernel modules, and I wouldn't put it past Caldera to do so. If they had a spotless track record, I wouldn't fuss about it.
I agree that Linux wasn't designed for embedded work, but since it has such massive driver support, such a decent programming environment, can run on a 386 (which is very cheap...) and gives out the source, it's an immediate candidate for a high-end embedded machine.
I'm not convinced that anyone would want to use it for a smart toaster. For trying to put a "real" OS on anything less than a 386, you might as well use DOS, or Minix, or fund development in ELKS... However, I fail to see why most people would want to do this in the first place.
The other consideration is that the Linux kernel has gotten a little memory hungry compared to previous incarnations. I don't know how stripped down you could make it, but there's a lot of code that could be left out in your average embedded system. (only use romfs for a filesystem, don't need a terminal or any extraneous peripherals, etc., etc.) However, I'd still want to have 8MB of RAM, or something to swap to, failing that.
I'd hope that a properly written application could only use a fixed amount of memory, but of course it depends on what you're doing. Any memory leaks in the system will always have to be fixed...
More Linux is good, but I'm not convinced that Caldera is. I hate press releases.
For example, if they're bringing us a low-cost, Unixish solution, what do we have already? A *free* Unixish solution...
If they're bringing us the ability to make embedded solutions, then what do all those car MP3 players already run on? Hmm... Linux, maybe?
Maybe I'd believe them if "OpenLinux" was an Open version of Linux, instead of something more like what the Open Group would do if they got their hands on Linux.
Now, I know that companies add enhancements into the OS, but do they have to *sell* them, without source? Hmm? That's why I like Red Hat. As well as funding development, they don't charge as much for what they also release for free, either...
Are there any ports open besides port 80?
And why does queso identify it as a Cisco/HP/Baystack switch?
It says it's running IIS 5.0, now that I'll believe.
Gee, at this rate, we can buy a Linux portfolio of funds... I'll just wait until I can "buy Linux" as a mutual fund or something. Maybe a Penguin family of funds?
At this rate, we should have it in a year or two, about when we achieve world domination for the next eon or so.
Um... you badly encrypted a disk, what?
My first computer was a C64, but I didn't know enough back then to tinker with it on that level.
I don't solder, but I do read the assembler output from compilers. It's instructive, but no programming teacher in the world would pass me if I wrote code like that... (well, I just knew where the memory was allocated, so I used it, and I knew what the offset was, what's wrong with that? Oh, and those jumps and increments work just like a for loop, what's the problem, really?)
Linux: "There's a penguin on the television set"... Of course, everyone loves penguins.
The US and Cryptography: "Help, help, I'm being opressed!"
Cafeteria food: "Spam, spam, spam, spam..."
...and they set such high standards in humor and animation, that now we have South Park.
This sounds really neat, but... It should be ready in 5-10 years, and it can store 800 times the data. Hmm. Gee, this sounds like what we can expect from normal exponential growth, eh?
Take a look at Linux and DVDs for more information...
It sounds like Red Hat is being really open and honest about their IPO, which probably isn't what the suits expect. :)
:)
It's true that they aren't the only game in town, and they've been very good about funding R&D. It sounds like they're going to do that still, and try to grow, which would make them a huge distributor, as long as Linux continues to gain in popularity, and they hold onto their marketshare.
Redhat Linux 6.0 is already a superior product compared to Windows, (I'll love to see it when it stabilizes... 6.1, anyone?) and if the corporations buy the more expensive versions, they're going to get a lot of income.
Remember, many big corporations post losses. It isn't a sign of weakness, and sometimes it's expected. In fact, if you lose *less* than expected in quarterly earnings, don't be surprised if your stock goes up.
I want to get in on this as soon as I can, because of my faith in Red Hat, but if it weren't for that, I'd wait for it to drop, and then... buy a decent-sized chunk of it. Individual stocks are risky, but I like this company.
The old Borland is back, I was wondering what was going to happen when they changed to Inprise...
:). Now I'm going to bring it home, and install it.
:)
:)
I don't know the legalities of this, but I just downloaded the zip files for TP 5.5 and TC 2.01. My advice for distribution (for personal use, of course...) is to unzip these without expanding the directories (just use pkunzip, if you have it), install it (since the filenames are unique, it won't look for the other disks... nice feature, that) and then archive the installation with a real archiver like RAR. I did this, and they both fit on a 1.44MB disk, with some room left over (enough for a copy of rar, say.
Why, you say? Well, it's a perfectly good, free DOS development environment. If you ever wanted to back-port something to DOS, or compile something with Borland extensions, here's an easy answer. They both run flawlessly under DOSEmu, as far as I can tell, so my Linux-only environment is safe. And they're free. If anyone asks you, Borland gave it to you.
Also, I have a lot of old Pascal code I've been porting for sentimental reasons. It'll be interesting to compare this. If I remember correctly, TP5.5 started supporting OOP in Pascal, which I loved. (TP7.0 did it right, but TP5.5 started it, I think) However, I just got a copy of the new version of Free Pascal, and it looks like it might do a good job under Linux... I'll have to compare it to my own porting efforts. (I've got my old graphics libraries working in C and SVGALIB now, I got plasma and color-cycling to work, so I'm happy...
Let's settle this silly SMP debate once and for all: get one of these machines to run NT and Linux (or swap out hard drives, I don't care how it's done as long as it's fair...) and test SMP. Preferably with the same applications, but whatever measures of SMP performance that can be done on both NT and Linux... (of course Povray, maybe web serving or whatever apps are sexy this week...)
I know that Linux doesn't have some of the cool features that IRIX does, but it should soundly whip NT, since NT 5 *might* have some of the essential features that UNIX has had forever... (note to dissenters: sure, I'll give you examples if you like...)
Oh, I know that much, and I don't agree with that either, but remember that even if you are 18, you still don't have your full rights as long as you are still in school.
It doesn't matter if you're an adult or not, as long as you're in a high school, and probably a college as well, you waive some of your (more important) adult rights. Why? I don't know, but I'd love to see people fight it.
Heck, it doesn't matter if you're in college or not, they'll still try to censor your newspapers and restrict the content you see. They just have less of a legal basis to do so...
I've got two words for you: configure junkbuster.
Mostly, I like the ability to get rid of ad banners (which is what it was designed for) and filter cookies. But you can configure it to deny specific sites and censor pages by keywords, and that is a good start.
I guess the more annoying step is to make sure that the user can't kill the proxy, or run the proxy on some other machine and allow no other access to the web...
Not that I'm in favor of censorware, but I also am not in favor of ads, or poorly written software...
Ooo, maybe we should let people decide what content they should view, after all, at least some popular censorware does a worse job than they would, themselves...
...that's what I thought. And we know that the extreme right wing moral majority is all in favor of the Constitution, and at least the Second Amendment... why not the First Amendment?
:)
Actually, your average elementary school student either has no concept of "porn", or is disgusted by it. And if they aren't, is that so bad? Maybe they're just a little ahead of their time...
Which brings us to our third point. Let's look at a scenario here.
1) User: I want to go to www.foo.com.
2) Stupid Proxy: www.foo.com is blocked. Sorry.
3) User: Why? I want to see it.
4) Stupid Proxy: Sorry, www.foo.com is blocked.
5) User: Well, I'll just find another way to get there, then, I really need to see that.
6) Stupid Proxy: ???
7) User: There, see, I knew it was okay.
Now, I'm all in favor of teaching children how to *hack* at an early age, I just find it pitiful when you have to do that to get *work* done. I had to in High School, because of the excessive, draconian security measures. I wasn't really popular with the computer administrators, but I could save my files to a disk, or use a DOS command if I wanted to, and that's what counted.
Where does it say in the Constitution, that students or children aren't people, and therefore don't deserve those basic rights that everyone else has?
My advice: if you don't like the First Amendment, then shut up.
Hmm? It saves cookies in a "cookie jar", but you can specify servers to allow cookies, I have to do that for at least slashdot. :)