Subj : fantasy & folklore pt2
To   : David Drummond
From : Charles Angelich
Date : Wed Nov 28 2001 10:52 pm

1233343d4f1b
unix



Hello David - 

DD>>>>>>> Go for Linux, whole hog. 

CA>>>> Seems odd advice considering what you have said about
CA>>>> your own setup below? 

DD>>> It would be more convenient if I could compile the
DD>>> nodelist on the Linux system. The Linux nodelist compiler
DD>>> code requires a later version of Linux than what I have
DD>>> on this machine. Other than that, this machine/OS version
DD>>> does everything else I require of it, I'm not inclined to
DD>>> muck with it. 

CA>> Wouldn't this also be true for others you counsel to "Go
CA>> for Linux, whole hog"? 

DD> He expressed an interest to change. 

That means he should be punished? 

CA>> To "reinstall" W9x you would be using DOS. You can't
CA>> reinstall a nonexistent OS to itself. AFAIK Linux doesn't
CA>> restore W9x. 

DD> I would boot from the Windows CD. Sure this would load some
DD> sort of DOS, but then, Windows (98) is based and runs on DOS 

Which means that DOS saves your bacon as I said. 

DD>>> In order to make a transition from DOS to Linux, one MUST
DD>>> be running DOS in the first place. Eventually, when one
DD>>> has transferred everything, the DOS is redundant. 

CA>> Redundant until the wonder-OS hit's the fan. Then it
CA>> restores what you had and the cycle repeats. 

DD> One then boots from the Linux startup diskettes and
DD> continues. 

If one does not rely on W9x machines as a part of their setup. 

DD>>> The only reason I "rely" on DOS is because I'm too lazy
DD>>> to re-install my Linux machine. It's been running for a
DD>>> few years now without any hassles (other than that
DD>>> Nodelist Compiler). 

At least you admit that you _do_ rely on DOS. 

CA>> You make it sound as though installing newer releases is
CA>> not an easy task even for those who believe they
CA>> understand Linux installs? 

DD> It isn't that hard to upgrade. It's some of the funny
DD> Fidonet apps I've got on there that I linger. It seems
DD> these things are very sensitive to the version of Linux one
DD> is running (in regard to which libraries they (the Fidonet
DD> apps) were written for). 

Yes, have heard how funny this is and how often we all have a
good a laugh about those variations in library files. 

DD> Currently it all (other than the superfluous nodelist
DD> compiler) works. I see no need to upgrade this machine's OS. 

To avoid reliance on DOS? 

DD> As I install another machine with Linux, I will be more
DD> likely to use a much later version. 

You sound tentative about this to me. 

DD>>> The reason for the LAN between the Linux machine and the
DD>>> Windows machines here is to add features to the Windows
DD>>> machine(s). 

CA>>>> DOS is the ghost in our machines! 

DD>>> In some it has been exorcised. 

CA>> It continues to exist in your own setup and probably the
CA>> majority of other systems as well. 

DD> It is not a necessary part of my setup. 

We already covered this in the top of the message and it is a
necessary part. 

DD> The Linux machines at work have NO DOS installed on them.
DD> They do share resources in a manner that DOS based Windows
DD> workstations may access them. 

Why would they require this ability if there is only LINUX at
work or are there some Windows machines there along with the
LINUX machines? 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
.... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)

.