Go to www.lnxbbc.org and a copy of the bootable business card cd. You can get the latest copy out of cvs, get a copy of their simple little build script and add whatever you want to it. I've got my own personal copy that I've added a few things to, one of which is rdesktop(and X11 rdp client).
It has XFree86 on it, and runs on the framebuffer, so it should work on darn near anything. It's got drivers for every nic I've tried it on, already on the disc. And it's worked fine with every pcmcia nic I've tried.
Shouldn't take too much effort to make it boot straight to X, and start an rdesktop connection. Anywho, it's a place to start.
I'm much more concerned these days with bandwidth utilization, which would be kind of hosed by a scheme that encrypts the data stream. I probably want encrypted authentication, but that's it.
I'm just curious why you think an ecrypted data stream would use more bandwidth than unencrypted?
Besides, sftp can use zlib compression anyway, so that could probably help a little(well, depending on the type of data you're transfering)...
I'm very curious as to what kind of 2D game you could be playing that would run slow enough that you could notice the difference in frame rate. I am probably a little behind on the games I play once every few weeks, but I can't think of any current 2D games.
And if you break it down to current games that would require a large amount of horsepower, that are also 2D, that run natively on BOTH windows and linux... I'm guessing you're coming up with a very small number...
10**6 is almost 50k(47.someodd) less than 2**20... So on a 1 gig drive they save themselves 47,437k, or almost 50 meg. Doesn't sound like alot these days, but that means we're losing 1 gig on every 20 gig drive we buy...
I don't understand why anyone would bother running with no swap space. I have about double my physical ram on my box at home(64 meg ram, 128 swap), and I believe my box at work has more than double(128 meg physical, can't remember how much swap)... I'm at home right now, and I seem to be using 10 meg of swap, probably left over from something I did the other day(seeing as how it never seems to deallocate). I also remember my box at work reading about 40 meg of swap used(it has 128 meg physical). Do I remember what I was doing that made it shoot up? nope:p. Why use this obese amount of swap space when so much is unused? Simple... I don't have the 120 meg drive my old 386 with running 1.2.13 had. I can get away with more than 8 meg physical, 16 swap:). Hard drive space is cheap... I was over at pricewatch today and a 17 gig ide is 180 bucks... just over 10 bucks a gig, or a buck per 100 meg... so if you have 128 meg of ram, it's gonna cost you 2 dollars and 50 cents for swap. Even if I don't use it, I aint gonna miss it... I spend more than that on lunch anywho...
NT4sp3 *NEVER* bluescreened me after runningit for a year on my desktop.
I don't have to sit in front of an NT box anywhere anymore. But at my last job, about a year ago, I had a dell ppro 200 with 64 meg. nt4, sp3. And I'll agree, it didn't blue screen often at all. Also, I didn't use this machine very heavily. IE 3, 2-3 3270 emulators, and lotus notes. You could watch my memory usage in performance monitor and watch my free memory drop by 5-10 meg each day(I only shut down once a week, who wants to wait for an NT box to boot in the morning?). By a little over a week, it'd freeze(no bsod though:p)
I would tend to have to agree. I've been reading his articles for a while now, and every time I read one all I can think is "Jeeze, why can't this idiot use a decent editor". I mean, if this was microsoft.com, I'd expect to see this sort of crap...
It's all about inertia. It takes more juice to get the thing started than it does to keep it turning.
Why do we need to spin at even 1x? mp3's go as high as, what? 256kbit or so? That's one heck of alot less than 150kbyte(that's what, 1200kbit?). So you'd need to spin it up to less than 1/4th to constantly keep up with an mp3. I think I'd prefer to spend the extra cash on 4-8 meg of ram and cache whole songs and a bit more though. But what uses more power? Only spinning up to 1/4th single spin, or spinning up/down. Or heck, maybe a constant half spin with read ahead?:) I know it wouldn't be using off the shelf equipment to obtain these speeds, but this thing probably isn't using all that much off the shelf stuff. Am I babbling again???:p
I have an AMD K6-300 with 64MB of SDRAM, a cheap generic 4MB S3-GX video card, and a sound blaster 16. I am running Debian 2.1, kernel 2.0.36, and KDE 1.1. I currently have 4 netscape windows open, 2 xterms, a nice Quake II screenshot as a background, 1280x1024 resolution, and playing a song on x11amp. I just wheeled up and down some web pages, used the scroll-bar to go up and down, grabbed a netscape window and moved it around my screen as fast as I could without experiencing any skipping or pausing in the audio
I have a similar system. Same video card, but I've got a cyrix 200, and an ess sb compatible. When I ran a 2.0.x kernel, I had absolutely NO skipping whatsoever. Now that I'm using a 2.2+ kernel it skips like crazy. My assumption is a change in sound drivers to these oss ones, but I'm not sure.
internal modems _do_ use the computers' uarts. if you've ever written a low-level serial driver you'll know this. communication with an internal modem occurs at the speed set on the uart. Most modern computers (anything >= pentium class) have 16550 or better uarts capable of 115200 bps (a uart is really just a fifo).
Actually, the uart is going to be on the modem card. If you put an old 2400 in your pentium, you'll notice it's either got an 8250 or 16450 on it. Put your 56k in a 286(or 8088 if you can find an 8 bit 56k card I guess:p), and you'll have a 16550.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to www.lnxbbc.org and a copy of the bootable business card cd. You can get the latest copy out of cvs, get a copy of their simple little build script and add whatever you want to it. I've got my own personal copy that I've added a few things to, one of which is rdesktop(and X11 rdp client).
It has XFree86 on it, and runs on the framebuffer, so it should work on darn near anything. It's got drivers for every nic I've tried it on, already on the disc. And it's worked fine with every pcmcia nic I've tried.
Shouldn't take too much effort to make it boot straight to X, and start an rdesktop connection. Anywho, it's a place to start.
Pat
I'm much more concerned these days with bandwidth utilization, which would be kind of hosed by a scheme that encrypts the data stream. I probably want encrypted authentication, but that's it.
I'm just curious why you think an ecrypted data stream would use more bandwidth than unencrypted?
Besides, sftp can use zlib compression anyway, so that could probably help a little(well, depending on the type of data you're transfering)...
I'm very curious as to what kind of 2D game you could be playing that would run slow enough that you could notice the difference in frame rate. I am probably a little behind on the games I play once every few weeks, but I can't think of any current 2D games.
And if you break it down to current games that would require a large amount of horsepower, that are also 2D, that run natively on BOTH windows and linux... I'm guessing you're coming up with a very small number...
Didn't he already say he was considering LDAP???
Oh come on, aren't I allowed to estimate :)
10**6 is almost 50k(47.someodd) less than 2**20... So on a 1 gig drive they save themselves 47,437k, or almost 50 meg. Doesn't sound like alot these days, but that means we're losing 1 gig on every 20 gig drive we buy...
I don't understand why anyone would bother running with no swap space. I have about double my physical ram on my box at home(64 meg ram, 128 swap), and I believe my box at work has more than double(128 meg physical, can't remember how much swap)... I'm at home right now, and I seem to be using 10 meg of swap, probably left over from something I did the other day(seeing as how it never seems to deallocate). I also remember my box at work reading about 40 meg of swap used(it has 128 meg physical). Do I remember what I was doing that made it shoot up? nope :p. Why use this obese amount of swap space when so much is unused? Simple... I don't have the 120 meg drive my old 386 with running 1.2.13 had. I can get away with more than 8 meg physical, 16 swap :). Hard drive space is cheap... I was over at pricewatch today and a 17 gig ide is 180 bucks... just over 10 bucks a gig, or a buck per 100 meg... so if you have 128 meg of ram, it's gonna cost you 2 dollars and 50 cents for swap. Even if I don't use it, I aint gonna miss it... I spend more than that on lunch anywho...
It doesn't crash daily. That's Linux FUD.
:p)
NT4sp3 *NEVER* bluescreened me after runningit for a year on my desktop.
I don't have to sit in front of an NT box anywhere anymore. But at my last job, about a year ago, I had a dell ppro 200 with 64 meg. nt4, sp3. And I'll agree, it didn't blue screen often at all. Also, I didn't use this machine very heavily. IE 3, 2-3 3270 emulators, and lotus notes. You could watch my memory usage in performance monitor and watch my free memory drop by 5-10 meg each day(I only shut down once a week, who wants to wait for an NT box to boot in the morning?). By a little over a week, it'd freeze(no bsod though
I do believe Microsoft sold a Z80 CP/M board for the Apple ][ and it ran CP/M. (showing my age, I just turned 40 this past week...)
:).
Don't worry, you're not showing your age. I owned one of those cards, and I'm only just turning 22 next week
Wonko
I would tend to have to agree. I've been reading his articles for a while now, and every time I read one all I can think is "Jeeze, why can't this idiot use a decent editor". I mean, if this was microsoft.com, I'd expect to see this sort of crap...
It's all about inertia. It takes more juice to get the thing started than it does to keep it turning.
:) I know it wouldn't be using off the shelf equipment to obtain these speeds, but this thing probably isn't using all that much off the shelf stuff. Am I babbling again??? :p
Why do we need to spin at even 1x? mp3's go as high as, what? 256kbit or so? That's one heck of alot less than 150kbyte(that's what, 1200kbit?). So you'd need to spin it up to less than 1/4th to constantly keep up with an mp3. I think I'd prefer to spend the extra cash on 4-8 meg of ram and cache whole songs and a bit more though. But what uses more power? Only spinning up to 1/4th single spin, or spinning up/down. Or heck, maybe a constant half spin with read ahead?
I have an AMD K6-300 with 64MB of SDRAM, a cheap generic 4MB S3-GX video card, and a sound blaster 16. I am running Debian 2.1, kernel 2.0.36, and KDE 1.1. I currently have 4 netscape windows open, 2 xterms, a nice Quake II screenshot as a background, 1280x1024 resolution, and playing a song on x11amp. I just wheeled up and down some web pages, used the scroll-bar to go up and down, grabbed a netscape window and moved it around my screen as fast as I could without experiencing any skipping or pausing in the audio
I have a similar system. Same video card, but I've got a cyrix 200, and an ess sb compatible. When I ran a 2.0.x kernel, I had absolutely NO skipping whatsoever. Now that I'm using a 2.2+ kernel it skips like crazy. My assumption is a change in sound drivers to these oss ones, but I'm not sure.
internal modems _do_ use the computers' uarts. if you've ever written a low-level serial driver you'll know this. communication with an internal modem occurs at the speed set on the uart. Most modern computers (anything >= pentium class) have 16550 or better uarts capable of 115200 bps (a uart is really just a fifo).
:p), and you'll have a 16550.
Actually, the uart is going to be on the modem card. If you put an old 2400 in your pentium, you'll notice it's either got an 8250 or 16450 on it. Put your 56k in a 286(or 8088 if you can find an 8 bit 56k card I guess