Subj : Re: unixs on a 386 To : Russell Tiedt From : Charles Angelich Date : Fri Nov 30 2001 07:05 pm 123338876968 unix Hello Russell - --8<--cut RT>>> Well you paragraph prior to that seemed to imply that RT>>> warranty/lack of warranty was somehow coupled/connected RT>>> to Linux, unless I misunderstood you. CA>> You misunderstood. I was referring to a warranty on each CA>> piece of hardware and that they would work in unison to CA>> perform the required task(s). RT> Any reasonably compatable piece of hardware works in my RT> experience, tho the poor/cheap types did not and still do RT> not perform to spec. You Yanks have a saying, or a few in RT> this regard. You get what you pay for, nothing more nor RT> less, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, and we borrow others like "Caveat Emptor" from the Romans. ;-) RT> From my point of veiw, you get results depending on the RT> amount off effort you put into your task at hand, whether RT> it be building a box or installing and running an OS. You RT> are not going to get more out of it than you put in. If you RT> are not prepared to put any effort in, then don't be RT> supprised when you don't get satisfactory results returned. RT> Choice is yours. As a philosophy yours is admirable, in reality it tends to vary a bit more than that. Just the word "availability" can toss a wrench into a well planned project. --8<--cut CA>> Or mail order, yes. RT> No, not an option those days. I'm not very politically oriented but are you eluding to some sort of embargo during apartheid (sp?) here. If so, I really don't know much about that. --8<--cut RT>>> Do you value your time? CA>> Not in the way others seem to value theirs, no. RT> Your problem, not mine. RT>>> or don't you understand the term productivity? CA>> "Worked great" and "most stable box" seems it would also CA>> allow the user to be productive? RT> Would you understand that a 386 can be productive, that a RT> 486 can be more productive and a 1.5 GHz box even more RT> productive in the same time span. Time, is of value here, RT> as it apparently is not with you. I can rush to the store then spend an hour standing waiting at the service counter for some moron to fill out paperwork. I can rush to another store to stand in a line at the cash register for a half hour or more. I perceive these as inconsistencies while others continue to "hurry up and wait". My criteria for valuing time is a bit off from the norm. Speed only saves time if you are speeding in the right direction. ;-) RT>>> or does the term competetiveness not mean anything to you. CA>> Competitive doesn't mean very much to me, no. Quality CA>> means more to me than competition. It's one of my flaws. CA>> :-\ RT> Well with a faster machine one can continue to deliver RT> quality work, while drinking less cups of coffee while RT> waiting for it to finish the current task and allowing you RT> to continue with the next. Yes, that would be true. RT>>> At that stage I did a lot of graphics work, a faster RT>>> machine mean't I could do an extra assignment every day, RT>>> and spend less time while doing so. My time is valubale RT>>> to me, if not to others. CA>> As it should, there is not an unlimited supply. RT> By impication above you have stated otherwise, as I doudt RT> you are immortal. Hardly immortal. Probably the inverse. RT>>> Does the above make sense to you or not. CA>> I understand the drain graphics imposes on computers. I CA>> also have noticed that newer graphics apps seldom try to CA>> maintain the same user interface even when they are CA>> authored by the same company. They move entire menus, menu CA>> items, rename menu items, and make up some of them as they CA>> go along. RT> So what does that mean other than needing to continue your RT> dilegence of getting the most out of what you have RT> available. Each new learning curve introduces errors. New methods introduce new errors that may not have ready made solutions. I prefer to do a thing once but do it right. CA>> I have not found a graphics app on an Intel machine that CA>> seemed to be written with productivity in mind. RT> Until recently there wheren't any Intel plaforms capable of RT> doing / competing with other platforms in the graphics RT> arena, never mind the software, the only advantage Intel RT> platform had was it was CHEAPER by a lage margin. The Intel processor is flawed by design. No amount of patching or modification can change that significantly. At one time my money would've been on Motorola. The money went into Intel and customers followed the money trail. Same thing happened to OS9. It was better but money didn't think so. RT>>>>> Really, you keep disparaging those who claim to have run CA>> Anything I could write, taken out of context, could alter CA>> into an entirely different subject. RT> True, and you seem to be able to help that along admirably RT> as well. Could be that I have more than one perspective on the subject? You would need to be more specific for a more specific response to that observation. CA>> I was discussing the type of 386 hardware that a person CA>> might have in their home when they read "Sure LINUX can CA>> install on a 386". RT> Well, it sure installed and ran very well on the 386 box I RT> have previously described, which was the system I had at RT> home. There was no way I was going to be allowed to RT> experiment with it at work then, tho I can and do get away RT> with installing Linux on "work" boxes at the present time. Linux has become less of a stranger and you have probably gained their confidence during the same time frame. CA>> People who decide beforehand to try an install on a 386 CA>> and seek out one that has enough memory, large enough hard CA>> drive, and a CD reader are not the same person who just CA>> happens to have an old one in their home. CA>> Read backwards for about a week in the LINUX echo and you CA>> will find replies to someone who want to put LINUX on his CA>> XT. At least one reply lists URLs to mini-linux without CA>> bothering to mention XT's don't execute LINUX. The bulk of CA>> the replies and side-discussions posted there as we speak CA>> are really not helping a newbie who doesn't know when they CA>> are omitting important data from the discussion(s). RT> People like the idea of Linux, and don't want to use RT> anything else, The people I read asking these questions appear to have no experience with Linux whatsoever or they wouldn't be asking the question. RT> if tthey can run Linux on there XT, as Linux (in standard RT> form) never ever ran on anything below a 386, they cannot, I know that, you know that, but obviously these people asking the question do not know that. Are they told "No, an XT will not execute Linux"? No, they are not. RT> there are other *nix system that they can try and see if RT> that floats their boat. AFAIK only Minix would execute on an XT. I can't think of any other that was ever available. OS9 probably could but I know of no XT version of OS9. CA>>>> I've even read through the bulk of that boring tedious CA>>>> sourceforg.net website and it's related links. Try that CA>>>> for self-flagulation. Try just the `poplular' so-called CA>>>> mini-LINUX mentioned frequently in echo messages. ELKS, CA>>>> mulinux, monkey-linux, doslinux, etc. and see what is CA>>>> required and what is really there. RT>>> All the bog standard Linux versions that where current at RT>>> the time worked, I personally installed Slackware, RedHat RT>>> and Debian in that order on my i386DX33. Would "that time" be release 0.9x,1,2,3,4,5,6,7, or 8? CA>> I believe you if you say you did you did. I've just eaten CA>> dinner, and am feeling passive. ;-) RT> Glad to hear it. They also all came on one CD-ROM set I RT> imported from the USA from a company called Info-Magic, so RT> I was free to try them. Info-Magic seems vaguely familiar but not by much. CA>> Makes me wonder why, if it was as you say, there are so CA>> many mini-linux projects attempting to get it onto a 386 CA>> that are not completed as yet and seem to be having CA>> problems finishing what they set out to do? Are they not CA>> being told where to find a working version or are they CA>> just insane zealot geeks? RT> They found they had no reason to re-invent the wheeel maybe? If that were true there wouldn't be new ones starting up each year as others fall by the wayside. I suspect the goal(s) are too ambitious to begin with and they give up. CA>> I cannot prove you wrong. I assume these systems no longer CA>> exist? RT> Unfortunately not, but should you aquire such a system, RT> feel free to bring it around and I will install Linux on it RT> for you. Wouldn't that be a hoot? If I showed up there on your front porch carrying an old 386 and some CD's you'd have a heart attack or something. RT>>> Seems that the dealers flog you crowd a great deal of RT>>> dumped goods there or what, maybe the crowd I deal with RT>>> are as picky as myself what I spend my money on. CA>> Packard Bell used to be popular in stores here if that CA>> tells you anything. RT> Yeah, if you give me one, I'll sell it, that is if it is RT> worth selling, or give it to someone who is capable of RT> looking after it, so that I do not need to support it. Even a guy I know who buys and sells old hardware for a living doesn't want to maintain a Packard Bell system for his dad. RT>>> Never combined any parts from different distro's, I might RT>>> be patient, but I am not totally stupid either, and any RT>>> one who puts bits and pieces together from various RT>>> distros has as much sense as someone who willy-nilly RT>>> combines bits of WIN3.1, WIN95, and WINNT and expexts it RT>>> to work. CA>>>> Nothing to be ashamed of - most would brag. RT> Like I have stated elsewhere, I value my time, I have RT> nothing to be ashamed of, niether do I have time to build RT> an OS to run on some wayout piece of hardware. Might be fun if you _did_ have the time though. ;-) CA>>>> But - not appropriate to tell a newbie "Sure LINUX CA>>>> installs on an 80386". This is misleading in the extreme CA>>>> IMO. RT> Every time I say to a "newbie" that Linux will run on a RT> 386, I go to the trouble of defining the system that I RT> used, tho I have a very strong suspicion, Linux could be RT> made to run on even "lesser" 386'es, I have not done it, so RT> cannot vouch for the lesser 386'es. With DOS and Windows PCMag and others would setup labs and get just about everything hardware setup and test the stuff. With Linux no one does that. No one person has everything and therefore can only assume what would be a minimum. Too bad Linux has no comparable mag to test hardware for everyone. :-\ CA>> --8<--cut RT>>> All I had to do was put an "append" line into "lilo.conf" RT>>> for Linux to be able to see and use the CD-ROM (2x) RT>>> attached to a Media Vision PAS16 Spectrum sound card. RT>>> This was documented in the SCSI How-To. CA>> I was under the impression most sound card CD drives were CA>> IDE? RT> No idea, the Media Vision ProAudio Spectrum has a Trantor RT> SCSI build in. Another variation not typical here. --8<--cut CA>>>> If you can't find even one in the entire Internet or on CA>>>> FIDO or usenet how would you convince yourself that no CA>>>> one lied, no one exaggerated? Would you think yourself CA>>>> just a fool who cannot find the obvious? RT>>> If so many others did it If I said my computer could levitate would you believe me? When you asked me how I did it I say "I can't recall" and when you ask for an image copy of my setup I suddenly have a mysterious hard drive crash or tell you I junked the machine. NOW would you still believe me and just feel stupid that your machine cannot levitate? RT>>> and you cannot, mayhap you lack the motivation or RT>>> competence to do so. From my point of view no other RT>>> reasons exist. CA>> There are other reasons and I did list them. RT> Again, your choice. There is an axiom that aeronauticl engineers use "With a big enough engine _anything_ will fly". I think this applies to bloated OS too? --8<--cut CA>> I guess I would have to ask where `around here' is? RT> Same as my origin line shows, the city of Bloemfontein, the RT> province (state) of the Free State, in South Africa. Wasn't sure if you just called a BBS there via telnet or lived there. (I don't live in Texas btw) --8<--cut CA>>>> Up to a point, yes. The existence of Plug-N-Play has CA>>>> encouraged the manufacture of questionable hardware CA>>>> because the OS "finds" the driver for you. Winmodems CA>>>> would've failed in the market place without support from CA>>>> Plug-N-Play IMO. RT>>> You mean without MS Windows surely? CA>> No, I don't and don't call me Shirley. ;-) RT> Shirley? Was a running gag in the movie "Airplane". Leslie Neilson said that many times during the movie. CA>> Rockwell tried to sell similar modems to DOS users earlier. RT> Mmm.... well once again, you get what you pay for, RT> Mmm.... nothing RT> more, and not a whit less. This is the USA. Home base for swindlers, con men, and other ne'r do wells. :-\ We often get less. > > , , > 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) .