I'm typing this on an SGI Indigo 2 that I bought at auction a few weekends ago. I finally got IRIX installed on it last week and it's a hell of a fine machine. The big tower case (it's the earlier one in teal) is from 1993. It and the 20" SGI/Sony Monitor were only $25.00.
But I have relics like an IBM PC Convertable here somewhere, and that's a far older machine. And a Synertek SYM-1, but I don't really use it much anymore.
Not hardly. Windows NT uses a microkernal type design. The Win32 subsystem doesn't run at the kernal level, nor does the Posix subsystem. The BSD code in Interix is userland code. Interix was developed by Softway Systems, who licensed the NT source code under NDA in order to produce it, a 'robust' Posix subsystem to replace the anaemic one included in NT by default.
Three or four years ago, Softway Systems was wavering and seeking a market. There was a time when they actually queried their customer base to ask if they should become an Open Source product. Shortly thereafter they were purchased by Microsoft. I have a Softway Systems version of Interix and a Microsoft version from after the acquistion. Microsoft's main thrust seemed to be to castrate Interix and make it less useful. The userland in the Softway version of Interix has useful tools like the vi editor bundled by default. The Microsoft version doesn't which makes it a far less useful environment to shell into.
Because Interix had an Inetd built in, that would run as a service under NT. With Softway Interix installed on an NT box, I was able to go over to my Sun, shell into my NT box under an Interix csh, and open up X apps that ran native on NT, displaying them on the Sun (or on any remote X display). I considered it pretty cool at the time, and wondered how and when Microsoft would squash it.
Old Interix also had a full development environment including GCC and the Motif libraries, so you could build Motif binaries that would run on the Interix subsystem on your NT system. That was the 'enhanced' version of Interix, which also, mind you, bundled a copy of Hummingbird eXceed, so you would be able to display said X apps on your NT box.
All in all, it was a pretty cool piece of tech, and being the software and operating system dabbler and fiddler that I am, I'm glad I have a copy of it tucked away complete with the keys, etc. to enable it.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
Photographers who put their work on websites are by definition 'sending it all over.'
I have one of those IBM boxes in my collection here. It's a desktop IBM PPC box that uses the PREP (PPC Reference Platform) design. It has VGA video, uses PS/2 type mouse and keyboard. It has S3/Trio64 video embedded into the motherboard. It is set up to run AIX and can run NetBSD as well. It's interesting to think of it running OS/2. It would be a really nice machine for that. It's not really scaled properly to run AIX for any useful purposes.
Somewhere I read that the only reason the team that developed the IBM PC didn't adopt the 68000, and instead went with the Intel 8086 architecture, was because they didn't have the chip handling production facilities at the time to work with that huge wide 68000 footprint.
Boy, would the world of computing today be a different place if they'd adopted the 68K...
I would like to add on a comment that a big part of the reason that I haven't tried MacOS X on my beige G3 machine(s) is that I've read so much about the abandoned features and the driver issues in doing so.
Actually, there is a commercial Macintosh emulator, Executor, that run on x86 from the era of the early to mid 90's that proves that the M68K can be adequately emulated on x86 hardware. What slowed down and ultimately stunted Executor was that they try to emulate the entire Macintosh OS environment (and do a pretty good job of it for OS 6 and earlier work). I remember being able to run full speed and with sound, etc. versions of Macintosh Wolfenstein 3D and Lemmings on a 486 based system with Executor.
There are some OSS apps that I used to like, from back in the 1996-98 era of Linux and OSS.
But some of them have been taken over by one borg or the other. Some got swallowed up by Gnome,and some by KDE. In most instances, the nice stand-alone apps that I remember have a K or a G prepended on them, and the dependencies to build them now require all kinds of bloat crap. There was an audio recording package that I used to like. Now, in order to build it on NetBSD you've got to first have fucking KDE Games installed.
It's annoying as hell, although I guess the people who work on a project own that project and can wander off wherever they want.
Projects used to have seperate, independent websites. Now it's all been sucked into a few huge 'take down big chunks of the OSS community when the site fails' central locations like Code Forge or whatever it's called.
But on the topic at hand: MacOS on the x86 processor. Why does everybody assume that if MacOS was ported to the x86 processor that Apple would adopt a standard 'PC' architecture. The legacy barnacles and hooks and crap that bog down the historic 'PC-AT' architecture that the modern x86 platform came up out of coulc be pitched by Apple. They could and should 'roll their own' x86-based platform.
It has been proven time and again and again and again that vendors, especially monopoly vendors, will not fix their systems in a timely manner unless they're pressured to.
Do you have a few cites for that claim? I wasn't aware that there were a huge number of monopoly vendors. How big is your sample size?
I'm not particularly pro-Microsoft person. I prefer non-Intel architectures, to be honest.
Clearly they do. As I have no interest in having 'one of the five fastest clusters' for however many weeks they remain in that spot. I mean, gee whiz.
However, it's still an interesting topic. Making memory error correction a processor intensive task seems like a kludge. Kind of the 'Win Modem' of the whole Apple design.
Sorry if raising it as an interesting point to ponder gets you all in a defensive fluster.
I'm starting to wonder if these 'SCO' topic posts are intended to draw off the ignorant potty-mouths and detract them from the important and interesting discussion threads.
Well, then, it had better work with an ASR-33 teletype connected via acoustic coupler. And I'd better be able to make a viable paper tape backup of the site as well.
And don't even start in on the requirements for people who don't have electricity.
Well, I 'have' six or eight big boxes full of old Jazz, Classical, and popular LPs and 78's that I've accumulated recently. I haven't gotten around to playing much of it at all yet, but I know that I 'have' it and it won't go away because some 'service' ceases to exist or I decide I don't need an ISP bill any longer.
Go ahead and be a 'consumer' if that's what you're into. I'm glad somebody in the past 'had' all these records. Some of it is damn fine music to listen to, and it wouldn't have made it's way to me if they'd just listened to the radio.
It's good to see someone still using the original meaning of the term 'crack'. You know, Eric Raymond and some others are trying to make you out to be a malcontent who breaks into systems, by redefining the term 'cracker.'
The hackers at MIT were anti-security in their time as well. When the Administration tried to enforce passwords on UNIX accounts, people like Richard Stallman refused, believing that all people should have access to the system.
The paranoia regarding passwords, and the whole concept of 'UNIX security' came much later. In the 80's security on UNIX systems was widely believed to be a joke.
MS-DOS has a 32 MB size limit on drive partitions. Of course you can use up the whole alphabet of drive letters on multiple partitions. Wether your MFM card will work is more bound to the head/cylinder count.
For fun, install CP/M-86 on that XT. CP/M has a maximum partition size of 8 MB...
Actually, if you install Wordstar 3.3 for MS-DOS on current hardware, or even, say, a 386-20 MHz machine, it's unusable.
The reason it's unusable? Because there isn't keyboard slowdown in the code. You cursor up, and you're at the top of your 80 page document before you can blink. You cursor down, and you're down at the bottom.
WordStar 3.3 is just too damned fast to run on current hardware. heh.
I've had instances where my land-line voice phone has rung at 10 minute intervals over and over again and a fax machine was on the other end of the line. It was obvious that someone thought it was a fax-answering number.
My solution, and one that I've read about elsewhere, is to figure out what number is calling (dialing #69 has worked a few times in my case) and send 'faxes' back at them. If you have a Data/Fax modem on your system or one you can use (I use ADSL for internet now), set up a few multiple-page solid black documents to send back at them. If you use Windows 2000 it is trivial to set up the 'fax services' like a regular printer.
A solid black document will do one of two things, if sent to a fax machine that directly prints what it has received. It will either:
1) burn out the stylus on a thermal fax machine, where the heat-stylus is only expected to 'write' for a limited duty cycle.
2) spray out a whole expensive cartridge full of ink onto a few pages.
It's pretty obvious that this 'journalist' is following along in the lines of the 'journalists' who visited the Soviet Union in the 1930's, getting pampered treatment and blue-ribbon factory tours.
The history of what really went on in factories and villages in the USSR is now becoming well known. Let's not repeat history.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm typing this on an SGI Indigo 2 that I bought at auction a few weekends ago. I finally got IRIX installed on it last week and it's a hell of a fine machine. The big tower case (it's the earlier one in teal) is from 1993. It and the 20" SGI/Sony Monitor were only $25.00.
But I have relics like an IBM PC Convertable here somewhere, and that's a far older machine. And a Synertek SYM-1, but I don't really use it much anymore.
well of course it does... it's just BSD rebadged
Not hardly. Windows NT uses a microkernal type design. The Win32 subsystem doesn't run at the kernal level, nor does the Posix subsystem. The BSD code in Interix is userland code. Interix was developed by Softway Systems, who licensed the NT source code under NDA in order to produce it, a 'robust' Posix subsystem to replace the anaemic one included in NT by default.
Three or four years ago, Softway Systems was wavering and seeking a market. There was a time when they actually queried their customer base to ask if they should become an Open Source product. Shortly thereafter they were purchased by Microsoft. I have a Softway Systems version of Interix and a Microsoft version from after the acquistion. Microsoft's main thrust seemed to be to castrate Interix and make it less useful. The userland in the Softway version of Interix has useful tools like the vi editor bundled by default. The Microsoft version doesn't which makes it a far less useful environment to shell into.
Because Interix had an Inetd built in, that would run as a service under NT. With Softway Interix installed on an NT box, I was able to go over to my Sun, shell into my NT box under an Interix csh, and open up X apps that ran native on NT, displaying them on the Sun (or on any remote X display). I considered it pretty cool at the time, and wondered how and when Microsoft would squash it.
Old Interix also had a full development environment including GCC and the Motif libraries, so you could build Motif binaries that would run on the Interix subsystem on your NT system. That was the 'enhanced' version of Interix, which also, mind you, bundled a copy of Hummingbird eXceed, so you would be able to display said X apps on your NT box.
All in all, it was a pretty cool piece of tech, and being the software and operating system dabbler and fiddler that I am, I'm glad I have a copy of it tucked away complete with the keys, etc. to enable it.
Photographers who put their work on websites are by definition 'sending it all over.'
Actually, what would be scary is if introverted computer nerds were handing the most important stuff in the corporate world.
Remember, we already tried the dot.bomb adventure.
Now, go change the toner cartridge on the laserjet on second floor like a good, geek, kay?
I have one of those IBM boxes in my collection here. It's a desktop IBM PPC box that uses the PREP (PPC Reference Platform) design. It has VGA video, uses PS/2 type mouse and keyboard. It has S3/Trio64 video embedded into the motherboard. It is set up to run AIX and can run NetBSD as well. It's interesting to think of it running OS/2. It would be a really nice machine for that. It's not really scaled properly to run AIX for any useful purposes.
Somewhere I read that the only reason the team that developed the IBM PC didn't adopt the 68000, and instead went with the Intel 8086 architecture, was because they didn't have the chip handling production facilities at the time to work with that huge wide 68000 footprint.
Boy, would the world of computing today be a different place if they'd adopted the 68K...
I would like to add on a comment that a big part of the reason that I haven't tried MacOS X on my beige G3 machine(s) is that I've read so much about the abandoned features and the driver issues in doing so.
Actually, there is a commercial Macintosh emulator, Executor, that run on x86 from the era of the early to mid 90's that proves that the M68K can be adequately emulated on x86 hardware. What slowed down and ultimately stunted Executor was that they try to emulate the entire Macintosh OS environment (and do a pretty good job of it for OS 6 and earlier work). I remember being able to run full speed and with sound, etc. versions of Macintosh Wolfenstein 3D and Lemmings on a 486 based system with Executor.
There are some OSS apps that I used to like, from back in the 1996-98 era of Linux and OSS.
But some of them have been taken over by one borg or the other. Some got swallowed up by Gnome,and some by KDE. In most instances, the nice stand-alone apps that I remember have a K or a G prepended on them, and the dependencies to build them now require all kinds of bloat crap. There was an audio recording package that I used to like. Now, in order to build it on NetBSD you've got to first have fucking KDE Games installed.
It's annoying as hell, although I guess the people who work on a project own that project and can wander off wherever they want.
Projects used to have seperate, independent websites. Now it's all been sucked into a few huge 'take down big chunks of the OSS community when the site fails' central locations like Code Forge or whatever it's called.
But on the topic at hand: MacOS on the x86 processor. Why does everybody assume that if MacOS was ported to the x86 processor that Apple would adopt a standard 'PC' architecture. The legacy barnacles and hooks and crap that bog down the historic 'PC-AT' architecture that the modern x86 platform came up out of coulc be pitched by Apple. They could and should 'roll their own' x86-based platform.
Gonna go out smashing looms tonight, huh?
It has been proven time and again and again and again that vendors, especially monopoly vendors, will not fix their systems in a timely manner unless they're pressured to.
Do you have a few cites for that claim? I wasn't aware that there were a huge number of monopoly vendors. How big is your sample size?
I'm not particularly pro-Microsoft person. I prefer non-Intel architectures, to be honest.
But your assertion sounds fabricated.
Ummm, Netscape 7 is Mozilla.
Sure, it comes in a different wrapper with a few of the nicer Mozilla features buried where ordinary users won't find them, but that's what it is.
It's a long and twisted story.
Netscape wanted to 0wn the net and they riled up Microsoft and now Microsoft sorta 0wns it instead.
I'm not sure either would have been a good thing, but I know there wasn't anybody involved who was a nice guy.
Clearly they do. As I have no interest in having 'one of the five fastest clusters' for however many weeks they remain in that spot. I mean, gee whiz.
However, it's still an interesting topic. Making memory error correction a processor intensive task seems like a kludge. Kind of the 'Win Modem' of the whole Apple design.
Sorry if raising it as an interesting point to ponder gets you all in a defensive fluster.
I'm starting to wonder if these 'SCO' topic posts are intended to draw off the ignorant potty-mouths and detract them from the important and interesting discussion threads.
Seems to be working.
So they bog down the software doing something that could be done in hardware?
Well, then, it had better work with an ASR-33 teletype connected via acoustic coupler. And I'd better be able to make a viable paper tape backup of the site as well.
And don't even start in on the requirements for people who don't have electricity.
Well, I 'have' six or eight big boxes full of old Jazz, Classical, and popular LPs and 78's that I've accumulated recently. I haven't gotten around to playing much of it at all yet, but I know that I 'have' it and it won't go away because some 'service' ceases to exist or I decide I don't need an ISP bill any longer.
Go ahead and be a 'consumer' if that's what you're into. I'm glad somebody in the past 'had' all these records. Some of it is damn fine music to listen to, and it wouldn't have made it's way to me if they'd just listened to the radio.
It's good to see someone still using the original meaning of the term 'crack'. You know, Eric Raymond and some others are trying to make you out to be a malcontent who breaks into systems, by redefining the term 'cracker.'
The hackers at MIT were anti-security in their time as well. When the Administration tried to enforce passwords on UNIX accounts, people like Richard Stallman refused, believing that all people should have access to the system.
The paranoia regarding passwords, and the whole concept of 'UNIX security' came much later. In the 80's security on UNIX systems was widely believed to be a joke.
MS-DOS has a 32 MB size limit on drive partitions. Of course you can use up the whole alphabet of drive letters on multiple partitions. Wether your MFM card will work is more bound to the head/cylinder count.
For fun, install CP/M-86 on that XT. CP/M has a maximum partition size of 8 MB...
I just bought a Silicon Graphics Indigo 2 workstation **. It has a 200 MHz Mips 4400 processor in it. It's fast enough for most of what I want to do.
(** So I can proudly run IRIX now and thumb my nose at SGI)
Actually, if you install Wordstar 3.3 for MS-DOS on current hardware, or even, say, a 386-20 MHz machine, it's unusable.
The reason it's unusable? Because there isn't keyboard slowdown in the code. You cursor up, and you're at the top of your 80 page document before you can blink. You cursor down, and you're down at the bottom.
WordStar 3.3 is just too damned fast to run on current hardware. heh.
One alternative that I favor is to 'fight back'.
I've had instances where my land-line voice phone has rung at 10 minute intervals over and over again and a fax machine was on the other end of the line. It was obvious that someone thought it was a fax-answering number.
My solution, and one that I've read about elsewhere, is to figure out what number is calling (dialing #69 has worked a few times in my case) and send 'faxes' back at them. If you have a Data/Fax modem on your system or one you can use (I use ADSL for internet now), set up a few multiple-page solid black documents to send back at them. If you use Windows 2000 it is trivial to set up the 'fax services' like a regular printer.
A solid black document will do one of two things, if sent to a fax machine that directly prints what it has received. It will either:
1) burn out the stylus on a thermal fax machine, where the heat-stylus is only expected to 'write' for a limited duty cycle.
2) spray out a whole expensive cartridge full of ink onto a few pages.
It's pretty obvious that this 'journalist' is following along in the lines of the 'journalists' who visited the Soviet Union in the 1930's, getting pampered treatment and blue-ribbon factory tours.
The history of what really went on in factories and villages in the USSR is now becoming well known. Let's not repeat history.