Re:Looking for Info on Current iPaq's Running Linu
on
Testdrive A Linux iPAQ
·
· Score: 2
I installed Familiar and QPE on my iPaq a couple of weeks ago. The installation was pretty easy; it took me a weekend but I was being *very* careful and eventually had to upgrade my Linksys 802.11 access point (didn't like Familiar's DHCP I guess).
I love QPE. It's very snappy and looks a whole lot better than WinCE. I must admit the lack of an email and browser app hobbles me a bit, but I'm getting the development tools online. The handwriting isn't as nice as Palm's Graffiti but is a hell of a lot better than WinCE's (IMHO).
I never was able to get my Xircom or 3Com pccard network cards to work; the Lucent Orinoco worked just fine though (after I upgraded my Linksys).
Would you buy an iPaq with Linux preinstalled? Compaq imports the iPaq from a Taiwanese company and (unconfirmed) has a exclusive contract to import the iPaq with WinCE installed (doesn't say anything about Linux, though).
I've been noodling with QPE on Familiar and found it to be stellar. I've shown it to some people I work with that use WinCE on the iPaq and they love the QPE look and feel. It's missing an email, web, and desktop sync app, but those can be brought over from KDE. Also needs an easy upgrade path.
What sort of market do people think there might be for iPaq with Linux preinstalled?
I replaced all my PCs power supplies with PC Power and Cooling supplies. Expensive, but worth it. Cuts down the noise quite a bit. My home office is now not completely silent, but a lot better than it was before.
I used Brief way back in my Dos days and still miss it a great deal. Visual Slickedit is a good substitiute, but it's not quite fast enough and has a few quirks.
I've talked to Borland/Inprise people off and on at trade shows about releasing the source code to Brief to the OSS/GNU community. Seems like it would be a great PR move.
I'd love to have a Linux console editor as fast, intuitive, and flexible as Brief.
Free Brief!
WANTED! 8086 to run Windows 1.0!
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 2
Off and on I try to find a working 8086 machine so I can bring up the copy of Microsoft Windows 1.0 I got with my IBM PS/2 Model 25 which died so many years ago. (It came on three 720k 3.5" floppies.) Win1.0 crashes on startup on a 286 and 386 (haven't tried 486 or DOSEmu.)
Thought it would be a hoot to post some pictures of Win 1.0 for those folks who haven't experienced it first hand.:-)
A few weeks ago, I installed RAID-0 across two IDE disks--one 8G the other 6G. Other than booting (doesn't load up at boot--have to do it manually), it's performed flawlessly (but slowly).
I've RAID-0'd the two disks on one controller (master-slave) so it is SLLLLOOOOOOOOOWWWW. The other controller runs the system (RH 6.0) OS disk. It may be slow but it's still functional which is what I was shooting for.
Just for laughs, I once installed redhat via RedNeck.
From then on, I had no end of problems with NLS in X complaining about not finding the redneck languange files (which didn't exist). I knew zip about X NLS so I finally just reinstalled using EN_US.
It was probably A Good Thing (tm) that they removed it.
Microsoft has never faced anything like the Linux (and the entire FSF/OSS) movement before.
Excellent software that gives people creative freedom. More and more new developers are going to learn Linux because it's a hell of a lot more fun than Windows and Visual Basic.
One of the most valuable aspects of having the OS source is application and/or driver development. I don't want to modify it--I just want to know how to make my code painlessly interact with it.
I can't tell you the number of times I didn't bother with the Linux man pages and just dropped straight into the code to see the structures I needed to pass down. Linux driver development is much easier when you don't have to fight the OS along the way.
There are times with Windows development where you run into crap that's either so badly documented or completely undocumented that you wish you could just peek at the source to see what the @#!$ they expect you to pass as parameters.
Also check out a similar story on The Register. http://193.122.103.82/990408-000001.html (The Register is on a temporary IP address while moving to a new ISP.)
Slashdot Mirror
I installed Familiar and QPE on my iPaq a couple of weeks ago. The installation was pretty easy; it took me a weekend but I was being *very* careful and eventually had to upgrade my Linksys 802.11 access point (didn't like Familiar's DHCP I guess).
I love QPE. It's very snappy and looks a whole lot better than WinCE. I must admit the lack of an email and browser app hobbles me a bit, but I'm getting the development tools online. The handwriting isn't as nice as Palm's Graffiti but is a hell of a lot better than WinCE's (IMHO).
I never was able to get my Xircom or 3Com pccard network cards to work; the Lucent Orinoco worked just fine though (after I upgraded my Linksys).
Would you buy an iPaq with Linux preinstalled? Compaq imports the iPaq from a Taiwanese company and (unconfirmed) has a exclusive contract to import the iPaq with WinCE installed (doesn't say anything about Linux, though).
With Familiar and QPE
I've been noodling with QPE on Familiar and found it to be stellar. I've shown it to some people I work with that use WinCE on the iPaq and they love the QPE look and feel. It's missing an email, web, and desktop sync app, but those can be brought over from KDE. Also needs an easy upgrade path.
What sort of market do people think there might be for iPaq with Linux preinstalled?
I replaced all my PCs power supplies with PC Power and Cooling supplies. Expensive, but worth it. Cuts down the noise quite a bit. My home office is now not completely silent, but a lot better than it was before.
I was also able to find the article here.
o days.topstory.htm
http://www.latimes.com/business/columns/dnation/t
The article's title is "No 'Silver Bullet' for Software's Growing Complexity" in case it shifts again and someone has to search for it.
I used Brief way back in my Dos days and still miss it a great deal. Visual Slickedit is a good substitiute, but it's not quite fast enough and has a few quirks.
I've talked to Borland/Inprise people off and on at trade shows about releasing the source code to Brief to the OSS/GNU community. Seems like it would be a great PR move.
I'd love to have a Linux console editor as fast, intuitive, and flexible as Brief.
Free Brief!
Off and on I try to find a working 8086 machine so I can bring up the copy of Microsoft Windows 1.0 I got with my IBM PS/2 Model 25 which died so many years ago. (It came on three 720k 3.5" floppies.)
:-)
Win1.0 crashes on startup on a 286 and 386 (haven't tried 486 or DOSEmu.)
Thought it would be a hoot to post some pictures of Win 1.0 for those folks who haven't experienced it first hand.
It sucked way back then, too (gasp!).
A few weeks ago, I installed RAID-0 across two IDE disks--one 8G the other 6G. Other than booting (doesn't load up at boot--have to do it manually), it's performed flawlessly (but slowly).
I've RAID-0'd the two disks on one controller (master-slave) so it is SLLLLOOOOOOOOOWWWW. The other controller runs the system (RH 6.0) OS disk. It may be slow but it's still functional which is what I was shooting for.
Just for laughs, I once installed redhat via RedNeck.
From then on, I had no end of problems with NLS in X complaining about not finding the redneck languange files (which didn't exist). I knew zip about X NLS so I finally just reinstalled using EN_US.
It was probably A Good Thing (tm) that they removed it.
Exactly.
Microsoft has never faced anything like the Linux (and the entire FSF/OSS) movement before.
Excellent software that gives people creative freedom. More and more new developers are going to learn Linux because it's a hell of a lot more fun than Windows and Visual Basic.
One of the most valuable aspects of having the OS source is application and/or driver development. I don't want to modify it--I just want to know how to make my code painlessly interact with it.
I can't tell you the number of times I didn't bother with the Linux man pages and just dropped straight into the code to see the structures I needed to pass down. Linux driver development is much easier when you don't have to fight the OS along the way.
There are times with Windows development where you run into crap that's either so badly documented or completely undocumented that you wish you could just peek at the source to see what the @#!$ they expect you to pass as parameters.
Also check out a similar story on The Register.
http://193.122.103.82/990408-000001.html
(The Register is on a temporary IP address while moving to a new ISP.)