Subj : Re: unixs on a 386 To : Russell Tiedt From : Charles Angelich Date : Wed Nov 28 2001 07:38 pm 1233343caa7d unix Hello Russell - --8<--cut RT> I don't know, but either way your neck of the woods seems RT> to be/have a piss poor "average level" whatever that may be. Yes, where I am is not a good enviroment for computer geeks. RT>>> Besides what does Linux caree if there is a warranty on RT>>> the hardware or not. :-) CA>> Not sure I understand this reference. LINUX is not a CA>> person and cares little about you, me, or anything else. CA>> ;-) RT> Well you paragraph prior to that seemed to imply that RT> warranty/lack of warranty was somehow coupled/connected to RT> Linux, unless I misunderstood you. You misunderstood. I was referring to a warranty on each piece of hardware and that they would work in unison to perform the required task(s). RT>>> Besides, in this neck off the woods, back then one only RT>>> ever read of the above systems in imported computer RT>>> journals, or magazines if you will. CA>> Yes Gateway and Dell grew to be major players but began by CA>> doing mail-order only sales. RT>>> You built your own boxes or had a dealer build them for RT>>> you, or you didn't buy computers, those where your RT>>> choices. Or mail order, yes. CA>> In the USA this would describe the situation prior to IBM CA>> entering the market with the PC and Radio Shack's TRS80. CA>> From that time onward custom building was optional and not CA>> really encouraged here anymore by any business. RT> Bad pox to them! Where I am I would not want people buying pieces of a computer thinking they could bring it back to me if they couldn't make it work. I would have to check each returned part for damage and would go bankrupt in the process. RT>>>>> My 386 DX 33 (DFI motherBoard) 8M 30 pin SIMM's (4x2M) RT>>>>> 540M Seagate HDD, Paradise VGA card worked great, with RT>>>>> WIN 3.1 and Linux. Was my most stable box, till my RT>>>>> current one. CA>> The configuration worked so very well that when a newer CA>> machine came along you turned your back and walked away CA>> from it or put the machine out for the junk man with the CA>> hard drive inside the case? CA>> "Worked great" and "most stable box" does not describe CA>> something that deserved to no longer exist. I find this CA>> abandonment a bit confusing. RT> Do you value your time? Not in the way others seem to value theirs, no. RT> or don't you understand the term productivity? "Worked great" and "most stable box" seems it would also allow the user to be productive? RT> or does the term competetiveness not mean anything to you. Competitive doesn't mean very much to me, no. Quality means more to me than competition. It's one of my flaws. :-\ 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 to RT> me, if not to others. As it should, there is not an unlimited supply. RT> Does the above make sense to you or not. I understand the drain graphics imposes on computers. I also have noticed that newer graphics apps seldom try to maintain the same user interface even when they are authored by the same company. They move entire menus, menu items, rename menu items, and make up some of them as they go along. I have not found a graphics app on an Intel machine that seemed to be written with productivity in mind. RT>>> Really, you keep disparaging those who claim to have run RT>>> Linux on a 386 Intel setup, CA>> I am as uncomfortable with this as you must be. RT> I am not uncomfortable with it at all, I just find your RT> persistance a little tiresome. Sorry about that but people keep poking at me with their stick. RT> Especially your going on about an average machine, which RT> was never an average machine here, When I speak (voice) to other people they seldom get confused. On FIDO specific words and phrases cause confusion. I suspect the confusion is just a ruse to be argumentative but I co-operate and expand on the word or phrase hoping to satisfy their need to feel superior because of an un-dotted letter `i' or un-crossed `t' in what I write here. RT> the term here usually applies to something that is a RT> non-descript system, three or so years old. Anything I could write, taken out of context, could alter into an entirely different subject. I was discussing the type of 386 hardware that a person might have in their home when they read "Sure LINUX can install on a 386". People who decide beforehand to try an install on a 386 and seek out one that has enough memory, large enough hard drive, and a CD reader are not the same person who just happens to have an old one in their home. Read backwards for about a week in the LINUX echo and you will find replies to someone who want to put LINUX on his XT. At least one reply lists URLs to mini-linux without bothering to mention XT's don't execute LINUX. The bulk of the replies and side-discussions posted there as we speak are really not helping a newbie who doesn't know when they are omitting important data from the discussion(s). 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. I believe you if you say you did you did. I've just eaten dinner, and am feeling passive. ;-) Makes me wonder why, if it was as you say, there are so many mini-linux projects attempting to get it onto a 386 that are not completed as yet and seem to be having problems finishing what they set out to do? Are they not being told where to find a working version or are they just insane zealot geeks? CA>> Nothing that I could find but assertions that it _did_ CA>> exist at some time in some universe in our space/time CA>> continuum. CA>> Would everyone benefit in some way if I just capitulate CA>> and deny what I personally know to be the truth about what CA>> I could not locate by any means available to me? RT>>> well the above setup was what I first installed Linux on RT>>> way back when I first used it as it was the only computer RT>>> I owned, and I used it to surf the wild, wild WWW, read RT>>> usenet news, exchange e-mail, and wonder of wonders RT>>> connect to my long distance BBS and get my Fido "FIX". I cannot prove you wrong. I assume these systems no longer exist? CA>> The majority of 80386's don't have 8 meg or 540 meg hard CA>> drives - but - if you did have a LINUX doing all that you CA>> say then it wasn't just an `install'. You installed and CA>> then fixed, patched, and added over some period of time. CA>> It was probably somewhat useless at first and , over time, CA>> as parts of newer versions were added it began to actually CA>> do something worthwhile. If you had less than three CA>> different versions of various LINUX combined into a CA>> workable system when you finished I would be shocked. RT> Like I said above, majority of 386'es here did, most 486'es RT> came out with 540M HDD or 840's. I know 486's had larger drives and more memory (to keep up with Windows requirements). 386's did not. RT> Seems that the dealers flog you crowd a great deal of RT> dumped goods there or what, maybe the crowd I deal with are RT> as picky as myself what I spend my money on. Packard Bell used to be popular in stores here if that tells you anything. --8<--cut CA>> A person who would tolerate three inoperable pieces of the CA>> same hardware before switching to another manufacturer CA>> would also patiently wait years if necessary to combine CA>> enough parts of various LINUX releases to create a working CA>> useful system. RT> Never combined any parts from different distro's, I might RT> be patient, but I am not totally stupid either, and any one RT> who puts bits and pieces together from various distros has RT> as much sense as someone who willy-nilly combines bits of RT> WIN3.1, WIN95, and WINNT and expexts it to work. CA>> Nothing to be ashamed of - most would brag. CA>> But - not appropriate to tell a newbie "Sure LINUX CA>> installs on an 80386". This is misleading in the extreme CA>> IMO. --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. This RT> was documented in the SCSI How-To. I was under the impression most sound card CD drives were IDE? RT> That sound card is currenty in the childrens computer, the RT> CD-ROM has long since ceased to function. :-( CA>> When I realized this was less than likely I looked for CA>> hybrids that were intact or detailed notes as to what part CA>> of what distribution needed to be added to what other CA>> parts to make a whole. Even that does not exist. RT> Lot of them do, bog standard Distro's. Looking for hybrids- RT> what are they? Either Maurice or Pascal in the LINUX echo could tell you about hyrbrid versions of LINUX better than I ever could. 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 one CA>> lied, no one exaggerated? Would you think yourself just a CA>> fool who cannot find the obvious? RT> If so many others did it and you cannot, mayhap you lack RT> the motivation or competence to do so. From my point of RT> view no other reasons exist. There are other reasons and I did list them. --8<--cut CA>> The 80386 you describe would've been considered "server CA>> class" hardware, not a typical purchase. RT> Round here it was a typical purchase, anything less was RT> considered not worth bothering with. I guess I would have to ask where `around here' is? CA>> I don't think the typical 80386 would have more than 4 meg CA>> of memory. Most seem to have 100 meg or even smaller hard CA>> drives installed. I won't argue if you think the hard CA>> drives were larger. As time went by they did get a bit CA>> larger but no one used W9x then and no one foresaw a need CA>> for large drives. It only made backups more difficult and CA>> expensive. Probably why Zipdrives were at 100 meg for so CA>> very long and DAT tape backups were 60 meg uncompressed CA>> and 120 compressed - Yes/No? RT> What people could afford or what technology allowed. Both. --8<--cut RT>>> Mmmm... helps when you have decent drivers for all the RT>>> hardware you have in a box, really. 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? No, I don't and don't call me Shirley. ;-) Rockwell tried to sell similar modems to DOS users earlier. > > , , > 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) .