| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 40 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 07:49:31 |
| Calls: | 291 |
| Files: | 910 |
| Messages: | 76,393 |
On Fri, 9/20/2024 5:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.
The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.
At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.
On 20/09/2024 22:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:FSVO 'equivalent' :-)
On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.
The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.
...
On 2024-09-21 04:30, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/20/2024 5:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.
The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the
8088 was the 68008.
At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clonesMy PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.
It was all I could afford
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[snip]
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clonesMy PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.
It was all I could afford
I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL) for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
On 20/09/2024 01:23, clinker wrote:
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible anmost things are *possible*
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
Windows existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
no one remembers it.
DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is to
load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[snip]
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clonesMy PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.
It was all I could afford
I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL) for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
On 2024-09-20 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:lot more memory
On 20/09/2024 01:23, clinker wrote:
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible anmost things are *possible*
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
Windows existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
no one remembers it.
DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is
to load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...
Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
software, or load/download programs with a stub.
Well you could in theory kick the processor into 'large' mode and use a
For those who write web pages there is no equal to Bluefish:
https://bluefish.openoffice.nl/index.html
When I say "web pages" I mean standard HTML/CSS and not the
ecmascript bullshit that dominates large portions of the web.
But check this:
"But we need your help! There is nobody looking after the windows installer and the OXS installer is out of date."
Oh boo hoo hoo. Big fucking deal. Microslop/Apphole does not deserve
such a magnificent tag editor so just let those ports languish. Concentrate on GNU/Linux only.
In fact, all FOSS programmers should withhold their software from Microslop/Apphole and deliver GNU/Linux versions only. In this way,
more people will be forced to use GNU/Linux.
I certainly do not make my software available to Microslop/Apphole.
I fired up a Ubuntu 24.04.1 USB stick the other day, was attempting
to use file sharing, when all of a sudden, a dialog appears on the
screen "informing me of the windows permissions on the share". I
was gob-struck. Since when does Linux do stuff like that ? That
crosses the line, and tells me that Canonical is now Microsofts Bitch.
Right after that, I booted my Linux Mint USB stick, and no such dialog appeared and I was able to access the storage in question, with no
dialogs of that sort appearing. So at least Linux Mint has not fallen for this trite approach.
By doing that, Ubuntu is now on my "stuck-off" list. Not to be used any more. That (finally) crossed the line.
That is the beachhead. Embrace and Extend.
The rot is now visible
for all to see. And Microsoft has the money, the deep pockets,
that others adopting Linux, did not have. Nothing will really
stand in their way, from a business perspective. They can shovel
coal underneath that, until it's well and truly burned to a crisp.
On 2024-09-20 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/09/2024 01:23, clinker wrote:
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible anmost things are *possible*
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
Windows existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
no one remembers it.
DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is to
load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...
Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
software, or load/download programs with a stub.
On 2024-09-22 20:02, Mark Lloyd wrote:sectors to enter manually, but it did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them as such in the FAT.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[snip]
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones >>>> used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but >>>> dunno if all models.My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
It was all I could afford
I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL) >> for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I went for bigger.
Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the time. There was also a table of bad
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.
I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB
(RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
went for bigger.
Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked
for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the
time. There was also a table of bad sectors to enter manually, but it
did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them
as such in the FAT.
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.
It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)
The head on that drive, has probably welded itself to the surface of the platter. Drives back then did not have plastic landing ramps, like they
do today.
[snip]
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.
It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)
The head on that drive, has probably welded itself to the surface of the
platter. Drives back then did not have plastic landing ramps, like they
do today.
So you'd rather have it in "somewhat better condition" and completely
useless than take a chance that you can get some use out of it?
[snip]
The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.
On 19/09/2024 01:12, Paul wrote:
The rot is now visible
for all to see. And Microsoft has the money, the deep pockets,
that others adopting Linux, did not have. Nothing will really
stand in their way, from a business perspective. They can shovel
coal underneath that, until it's well and truly burned to a crisp.
Like their mobile phone software eh?
There are all sorts of theories as to how Linux is "impervious to
assault". I'm not so sure.
They always seem to end up with a pile of money.
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no one remembers it.
On Thu, 9/19/2024 7:07 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/09/2024 01:12, Paul wrote:
The rot is now visible
for all to see. And Microsoft has the money, the deep pockets,
that others adopting Linux, did not have. Nothing will really
stand in their way, from a business perspective. They can shovel
coal underneath that, until it's well and truly burned to a crisp.
Like their mobile phone software eh?
They don't have to be good at anything.
They always seem to end up with a pile of money.
There are all sorts of theories as to how Linux
is "impervious to assault". I'm not so sure.
It will depend on the community to save it.
Paul
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.
I have a stiction drive here. It needed a tap on the side of the
drive housing, to release the head and allow the spindle to spin.
You could say, this practice made me <cough> nervous. Because
if you hit it too hard, you could be doing long term damage.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:51:36 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[snip]
I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB
(RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
went for bigger.
32MB was the largest partition size supported by the early version of
FAT16 (16-bit sector count * 512-byte sector size). The disk could be
larger, but then you'd need more partitions.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:57:26 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.
Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?
Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.
On 2024-09-25 23:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:57:26 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.
Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?
They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.
I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking), then offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.
I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there was
one in version 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI
I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:17:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.
All I can recall of LabWindows is that it was a poor attempt to recreate
the Macintosh-only LabView on Microsoft-compatible PCs.
Remember the Mac II and successors had NuBus for their expansion bus at
the time, which offered higher performance for connecting instrumentation than anything available in the Microsoft-compatible world, until PCI came along.
Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had ...
On 26/09/2024 20:17, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-09-25 23:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:57:26 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.
Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?
They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your
application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.
I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking),
then offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.
I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there
was one in version 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI
I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.
Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had, if
all it was running was your own code talking straight to the Bios or the hardware.
clinker wrote:
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.
most things are *possible*
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.
But the thing is, again from my perspective, as a user, not a developer
of operating systems, is that what you want - and IBM, Red Hat etc
understand this - is a reliable secure bug free platform on which to
write applications that is easily ported to whatever hardware is available.
And in that context 30 years of development beats a new kid on the block >every day.
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows existence as it is known today.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:36 -0600, clinker wrote:
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.
We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.
GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.
But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
of Hurd was something of a mistake.
Hurd is still alive, if not kicking, however:
https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.
Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
and not beer).
Lester Thorpe wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:36 -0600, clinker wrote:
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.
We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.
GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.
Not "OS"... it's "kernel".
But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
of Hurd was something of a mistake.
Hurd is still alive, if not kicking, however:
https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.
Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
and not beer).
The Hurd mentality :-)
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't
so busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off
bigger salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
clinker wrote:
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no >>> one remembers it.
We also had Amigas and Atari ST's, before it become impractical to
compete with the Wintel juggernaut on the desktop.
If Micro$oft could push all of those (at least somewhat) established platforms out of the market, what chance does a newcomer have?
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:35:52 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:
Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
in Rust.
Why Rust?
Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.
C is the ultimate and only programming language.
But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.
All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
hopeless programming "expertise."
Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
in Rust.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.
People don't want to pay for operating systems any more. The *only*
place Microsoft hangs on is the desktop, and desktop sales are now more
or less commercial. Not many average dudes buy a desktop when they can
have a fondleslab or a big fuck off 'rob me' mobile phone...
Only hardcore gamers
Nothing of any real significance has come out of Microsoft for ages.
It is really a cash cow now. It will dwindle and get sold off. Gates has
his billions.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.
DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...
There is evidence that Linux itself is getting bloated, and in need of
the same 'back to basics' approach that Linus dud 30 years ago.
Linux is like C. It has its issues, but everyone understands them
everyone can program in it and it works well enough. And it doesn't need licenses to be paid to use it.
And sometimes its easier to fix bugs in it than to rewrite it in Rust
etc.
The original Unix ran on less that 128K RAM
The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't so
busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off bigger
salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.
On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.
The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.
On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...
GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.
The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088
was the 68008.
...
