Re: regarding "just plain works" as a goal
--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 16:46, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
nicely for multimedia and applications, they will agree that Linux can resurrect allegedly "obsolete" hardware.
Right. And so can Windows 98.
No, no it can't. Ubuntu 8.04.1 runs nicely on a PIII-1Ghz (actually I have it running on a PII-600Mhz as well) and has *current* updates. Windows98 has *no current updates*, so it will be pwned the instant it connects to the Internet. Also, software isn't current for Windows98 like it is for Linux. With Linux the end user merely needs to access a software repository for current software (or create a download script for a friend's broadband connection, see P.S. at the bottom of this message). The Windows98 user must hunt through EBay and used computer stores and junk bins at software sellers to find hopelessly outdated software. Windows98 cannot be used to resurrect allegedly "obsolete" hardware precisely because Windows 98 *is* obsolete, unlike the hardware it ran on.
Old hardware is garbage. Garbage is faster today than it was a year ago.
To paraphrase the old proverb, "Billy Crook's garbage is everyone else's treasure." Or, if you read to the very end of this email reply, paying close attention to what Billy Crook says about old hardware, "Billy Crook's garbage is *also* Billy Crook's treasure."
Thanks for comparing Linux to Windows 98.
I never did. You did, most inadequately.
It can run fast on old hardware too, and you're just cementing the idea in the heads of the public that Linux is what you put on garbage computers before the trash collector comes to haul them off. That's progress. Thanks. I don't even think there's a need for this public PR campaign any more. Microsoft has done a better job than any of us could at making Linux look good.
You may recall there's this thing being called a "banking and credit crisis" happening right now. Lots of companies are freaking that for the next few years they may not be able to buy new computers (or in your words, upgrade their "garbage") because they will have no credit to borrow against. Thanks to Microsoft Vista, the only way to "upgrade" to the only new OS they know about is to buy new computers. So they, in their own minds, cannot upgrade right now. People need to realize that that currently-owned business computers which run sluggishly on Windows XP/Vista will fly on Linux and be safe from modern threats (unlike Windows98). What you don't seem to realize is that if someone sees a PIII-1Ghz machine run faster on Linux than their P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine runs on Vista, the above average level of intelligence of an ITEC attendee means they will probably make the leap of logic saying that a P4-3.0Ghz machine would run considerably faster on Linux than on Vista.
While some ITEC attendees might figure out how to dual-boot their existing system to explore Linux, most of them will balk at dual-booting their main system. What I aim to do is show them that the 10 year old 1Ghz system in their closet (or the $25 1Ghz systems on Craigslist) could be restored as a Linux training system or child's computer. That will get them using Linux.
Not when they have a REAL computer already on their desk
Right now everyone is worried about money. There are still FUD trolls out there talking about Linux trashing hard drives. No company is going to spend new money buying a new machine to test Linux on, and no company is going to want to risk trashing (real fears or not) an existing, working PC system just to save a few bucks on Linux. If I show them a modern machine, they are going to think in terms of modern machine prices, then think of the fact that their bank won't lend them any more money, and thus continue to use their existing Windows OS setups. If I show them they can test out Linux on a PIII-1Ghz machine, and even use it as a production machine in some circumstances, they're going to be able to afford the $50 at the Surplus Exchange for a PIII-1Ghz machine (as of October 2nd, 2008). I thought I might plug the Surplus Exchange while I'm at ITEC as well, they are an *actual* non-profit and do have great prices on older machines suitable for trying out Linux, as well as training classes helping teenagers learn how to build and maintain PCs. Whether or not a computer is REAL is an entirely subjective opinion, as you seem to agree with despite emphatically insisting that "garbage" computers have no use and wouldn't be wanted by anyone for anything, especially not by Billy Crook, no, not even as a WAN/router box.
Show them Linux on a MODERN machine. It is NOT what you put on old garbage. It is what you replace Vista with when you need to get work done.
Full agreement with the "replace Vista" concept, but if I show up with a P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine and run Linux, people may be tempted to think that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing it to fly. If they see a PIII-1Ghz system fly on Linux, they have to admit that the OS choice has more to do with it than the hardware, because most of them will have used a PIII-1Ghz system running Windows.
The main system can come later.
Yeah, by your plan, it will come ten years later when it's in the closet, and there's another new system on the desk.
And the new system would be running Linux, of course, because the end user had been playing with Linux for ten years. "Test machine now, main machine later" is how I approached it 10 years ago, and the reason why I think that this reasoning works is that it worked on *me* (though no doubt much faster these days: the instant Ubuntu Linux came along, it made me drop Windows as a production OS almost instantly).
And the other ten year old software [Windows98] plays "all those cool retro DOS games" (without quirks).
Personally I'd consider "having hundreds of unpatched security holes WHICH WILL NEVER BE PATCHED" at the very least a "quirk", if not "a reason to run away screaming".
If you want to make a statement, bring two, identical new computers in. Wipe Vista off one of them, and have them doing the same things, with a cpu/memory utilization meter always on top.
That would TOTALLY RUIN THE POINT of the KCLUG booth. After all, Linux can *stand on its own*. If we constantly engage in Microsoft bashing, we look like the fringe "nutritional supplement" industry which uses doctor-bashing and medicine-bashing as a sales pitch: "use our products, not necessarily because they're better but because all the other products are EVIL!" Frankly I think that Linux can stand on its own, without all the Microsoft bashing. We do a lot of M$-bashing here, because we're all Linux converts here (and some of us still support Microsoft products), but out there on the ITEC Exhibitor floor the focus needs to be on informing people about what Linux can do, not that Microsoft is evil. The attendees have to build, maintain, and service Microsoft already, they already know that Microsoft is evil and do not need reminding. What they don't know is what Linux can do, or something else that Linux can do that they didn't know yet which would make them seriously consider using Linux. I have been bringing a "Why Not Use Linux" tri-fold pamphlet to ITEC for the past few years, designed on OpenOffice.org and printed from a Linux machine, which describes Linux in glowing terms while avoiding any reference whatsoever to any other OS. People need to be told about Linux and what it can do for them. They do not need to be told Microsoft is evil (this is self-evident information ;-) ).
I think an attendee who has ever had to upgrade his or her PC <snip>
I really couldn't wait until the end of that line. I'm serious. I had to stop right here to ask What? Where have you been? People don't upgrade their PCs. Maybe we do, but the rest of the world does not. I've looked at what ITEC cost to attend, and what was on the schedule, and it sounded to me like corporate IT middle management.
Regarding the ITEC "cost to attend", the really high prices are for the Exhibitors, not the Attendees. The Attendees (before I started getting in as a KCLUG Exhibitor, I was also an Attendee) can get in for *free*. I still get E-mails from the ITEC promoter telling me that the Exhibitor Floor ITEC (plus some free seminars) can still be had for *free*. The folks going to the seminars are most likely the IT department people, with any extra paid seminar costs paid for by their companies. So we are talking to the IT department employees, the IT guys for small businesses and government agencies, and the IT guys who work contracts for consulting agencies, and mostly not the middle management, when we speak to ITEC attendees. One of my oldest friends is the IT guy for the Kansas City School For The Blind: his employer can't afford expensive seminar fees, but since basic ITEC admission is free, he attends ITEC every year.
[Corporate IT middle management] don't open the computer. They don't upgrade windows. They buy another computer with 'the new windows' on it.
No, they pay an IT department to do mysterious things with computers. The IT department also attends ITEC, you know, and they're handed a budget by middle management and told to make the most of it. Expecting that the IT people always tell the truth, when doing exactly what middle management thinks they want to happen would be so much more expensive than the existing budget, is somewhat naive on your part. IT departments are successful when the end user has no idea what the IT department does. This can cause problems for the IT department later on, when bean-counters think that the IT budget can be cut because "the computers run so well we don't need such a high IT budget", but the fact is that the less middle management knows about the operation of the IT department, the better for the entire company.
</snip>because Microsoft added more bloat to
their Windows OS and he or she got sick of the older hardware system slowdowns, will be impressed with how Linux runs so fast on a PIII-1Ghz machine.
When windows users are sick of the slowdowns, they call Geek Squad, or buy a new one.
Yes, but we're not talking to "most Windows users" here, as you yourself pointed out just a few paragraphs ago. We're speaking to the IT departments. The middle management (or in fact any other non-technical Windows users) aren't really involved here.
I have NEVER been impressed on how Linux ran on old hardware. Maybe that's just because I use it on modern machines on a daily basis though.
And you aren't everyone in the world. In some ways, be glad of that. ;-)
Listen to this carefully, because it is important. NOBODY WANTS the old computer in the closet/basement.
Because the only OS option they know about is Windows OS. Don't try to use "hatred of Windows" as your "proof" of "hatred of old hardware."
It's there because they're afraid trash pickup will bill them for hazardous waste disposal.
Because they don't know a useful way of using it in their home, because they only know about Windows. Again, you are erroneously claiming the effects of "hatred of Windows" are actually the effects of "hatred of old hardware."
So what old hardware I use, I use for WAN networking/firewall and proxy hosts, because that, it can keep up with.
So, what you are saying is that *you* WANT the old computer in the closet/basement? Aren't you just cementing the idea in the heads of the public that Linux is what you put on garbage computers before the trash collector comes to haul them off? Isn't Linux NOT what you put on old garbage? Aren't you NEVER impressed on how Linux runs on old hardware? It is rather silly that you went on for several paragraphs insisting that people should not be informed that Linux is what you put on garbage computers, and that people will not find Linux on garbage computers to be useful, and then informed everyone that *you* put Linux on garbage computers and feel that Linux on garbage computers can be useful to end users. ======================== P.S. It occurred to me just now (honestly forgot) that I'm typing this entire message on the demo PC (with its 15" monitor), the Ubuntu Linux 8.04.1 PIII-1Ghz machine, while using it to listen to music and download updates for a friend's Linux PC which has no high-speed Internet (Synaptic "download scripts" are nice). This system is most definitely not "garbage" and still has a lot of use left on it with Linux, use it would most definitely not have under Windows 98. ========================
Leo Mauler, I originally wrote to you, and not to the list, because I find largely, when you post to the group, it is noise, and chases away anything on topic. If you're going to invoke my name in public and inaccurately however, I will respond on list to what is on topic. What you so gleefully redacted out of context included that I'm "satisfied" with how Linux runs on old hardware. It runs O.K., but it's not going to turn water in to wine. You just try running the Gimp or OpenOffice on that Pentium 2, and tell me how it works out. Try some Firefox plugins. Try compiz. Actually, try kde 4.1 or gnome 2.24. Yes, Linux is better/faster than windows. No, old crap isn't the right place to show it. Most people don't care what runs on old hardware, and I find it rather repugnant to hear people say "Oh yeah, Linux, that's the thing you put on old computers, right?" No. Stop it. Buy a brand new machine with Linux on it. When people see Linux on a slow computer, they see Linux is slow. Yeah, it's not as slow as the alternatives, but its sill slow. Why don't you make it less of a marketing campaign for Linux, and maybe spread awareness about the LUG instead. Tell people about this group of individuals they can network with and learn from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:04, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are still FUD trolls out there talking about Linux trashing hard drives.
IT people know that software doesn't irrevocably damage hard drives. At least they should. God I hope they do. The most recent "OMG Linux!" fear circles around what the e1000e driver does to Intel pcie gigabit adapters.
Whether or not a computer is REAL is an entirely subjective opinion, as you seem to agree with despite emphatically insisting that "garbage" computers have no use and wouldn't be wanted by anyone for anything
It doesn't take much hardware to pass packets at 2008 last-mile speeds. That's something old hardware can keep up with. I use GNU+Linux because I don't like proprietary software, or rebooting, and because it happens use the same remote access protocols, filesystems, etc, as everything else I use.
Full agreement with the "replace Vista" concept, but if I show up with a P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine
If you, Leo Mauler, show up with a dual core Pentium 4, people will think you're a lunatic, and remind you Pentium 4's were never dual core, or that you probably meant hyper threading. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4 And yes, I'm speaking in past tense about Pentium 4. I can't tell if you, Leo Mauler, meant to imply that a Pentium 4 was fast by 2008's standards. Perhaps if you were, you'd be interested in a Core 2 Quad, or a Phenom. Pentium 4 was released almost 8 years ago. The very last of that era ended two months ago.
and run Linux, people may be tempted to think that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing it to fly.
Boot it off of a thumbdrive, and leave the case open and hard drive blatantly disconnected. When people ask how that works you'll have your chance to rant about how fantastic Linux is. I never said everyone hates Windows, and I don't see any connection or cohesive thought in most of what you write. Immediately cease ranting about hatred of Windows. I never mentioned any hatred of Windows, Leo Mauler, and I'd appreciate if you'd get over it. Additionally, you are wrong. Most people don't know what 'OS' means. People don't like old computers because old computers are old, and slower than new computers. You're not going to argue that fact out of existence. Leo Mauler, you accused me of "insisting that people should not be informed". That is false, and libellous. It has never been my goal to prevent people from being informed. You, Leo Mauler, miss the point entirely, so I will summarize in on sentence: If you're trying to market Linux, it's ability to run on old hardware is not nearly as attractive as getting better performance than alternative software on modern hardware.
--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, Linux is better/faster than windows. No, old crap isn't the right place to show it. Most people don't care what runs on old hardware, and I find it rather repugnant to hear people say "Oh yeah, Linux, that's the thing you put on old computers, right?" No. Stop it. Buy a brand new machine with Linux on it.
So because you want to make people stop saying "Linux, thats the thing you put on old computers?", you're willing to adopt the stance of Microsoft and demand that all users of a modern OS buy new computers? No, I have no apologies for refusing to do Microsoft's work for them and kill off Linux by helping to *erase* its advantages over Windows. Windows is so big and bloated, and gets so much bigger with each new incarnation, that you have to buy a new computer to run a new version of Windows. Linux can run on modern quad-core processors, but you can strip it down to run on a 486 (like DamnSmallLinux and DeLi Linux have already done) without erasing its ability to be a desktop system. There are versions of embedded Linux which will run on XT and 286 CPUs. If a friend gives you an old computer made in the past 19 years (the Intel i486DX CPU (the very first 486 CPU) was shipped in 1989), I guarantee you can put a useful version of Linux on it, and if the computer was made in the last 10 years (1998+, possibly even earlier) you will probably be able to put a modern version of Linux on it. Microsoft cannot come anywhere near this claim, especially as they were a major reason (with the release of Windows 95) for 486s being dropped in favor of Pentiums. Microsoft Windows has discontinued support and security patches for Windows98, meaning that Windows98 cannot be used to resurrect old hardware as Windows98 is now obsolete, unlike the hardware it ran on. Windows XP Professional will run out of support and security patches in less than 5 years, making it an identical type of OS as Windows98: an OS which cannot be used to resurrect old hardware because it is scheduled to DIE in less than five years. Linux has no such limitation. Linux will continue to live and thrive because it is geared towards growing and living, rather than scheduled product death. The hardware Linux runs on remains a wide selection, rather than Windows' limited "made in the last few years" selection. Linux's source code remains open, allowing code from older versions to be improved for modern uses (if improvement is even needed). Linux's memory management means the same computer runs Linux faster and more stable than Windows (no new computer upgrade required for an increase in speed and stability). These are all advantages Linux has over Windows which need to be /celebrated/, not demonized. The correct response to "Linux, isn't that what you put on old computers?", IS /NOT/ "No, Linux is no different from Microsoft Windows/Vista in that you need to buy a new computer to run Linux." The correct response is "No, Linux is what you put on ANY computer."
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 15:07, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Linux can run on modern quad-core processors, but you can strip it down to run on
FAIL. Nobody wants things stripped down. When people have to strip down their system to keep it fast, is is almost always because the hardware is old or underpowered. Obsolete hardware interferes with the wishes and productivity of the user. If you ripped all the seats and upholstery out of your car, you'd get better mileage, and faster acceleration. When you go to a drive-thru, you don't ask if you can have your cheeseburger faster if they skip the pickles. Nobody does that, because people want the real deal. Strip out the ABS, power steering, the radio, etc... It might still run, and drive. NOBODY WANTS IT THOUGH. And if you have to strip anything out, to make it work reasonably fast, the hardware is just slow, and old, and obsolete. New computers really aren't that overpriced. Buy some. Linux is not magic Leo. It won't make a 200mhz Pentium Pro perform like anything manufactured in the last year, no matter how much you strip out.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 15:07, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Linux can run on modern quad-core processors, but you can strip it down to run on
Linux is not magic Leo. It won't make a 200mhz Pentium Pro perform like anything manufactured in the last year, no matter how much you strip out.
Billy, Leo doesn't care. He just wants to argue with you. -- Chris
I have done something to raise a point Re: Stripping. to show points in opposition. A post can be stripped to:
Linux is not magic Leo. It won't make a 200mhz Pentium Pro perform like anything manufactured in the last year, no matter how much you strip out.
Or I can go on at length if it's covering points of information. All the above was what made me think over how to explain a bit more rationally both side's reasons for being. From comparisons.As what to a point may indeed be quite true for "application BLANK".-Is NOT so for another application or task. With the string of intentional qualifiers to show the logic hole in making either hardware extreme become what it is not. Let me make it a simple balance listing of sorts. You can make a tiny,fast distro -the Linux doppelganger of Win95- running in RAM . It will do browsing limited only by the connect speed-and the hardware metrics become of little value to ramp up any more past a certain point. Sort of akin to diminishing returns being hit early on. Which is valuable if you have a zero budget and are using donated everything. And yeah- this level of things may not play 3D shooters with "Blood Splatter Physics Rendering" Or you can make a lavishly extravagant distro- Linux Vista?- that will test the limits of our most extreme hardware. Even when that hardware is maxed out in every metric. The sky's the limit for bloat&hardware $$ as expense etc is of no concern. And yeah- THIS level of stuff might even rival gaming dedicated gear. If you really have a need for hearing an Orc's head bounce behind you in Dolby 5.1 as the blood fountain realistically parts for your sword's return stroke. But coming back to a boringly routine Webmail log in-answer a question-log out- session? I hold that in the majority of browser based tasks- The utility of my under $300 IBM T42 will be comparable to the $6,892.90 Falcon Gaming custom rig. Google will NOT load faster over the same 56k dial up on one machine over the other. That explains the literal incomparable situations we have between extreme user desires. Or is there a zone of exception? Both extremes have an overlapping truth zone. The set of tasks where from oh- let's use Google's dead stock search page- Type kclug into both search bars. Press Enter on the two machines and see which has the KCLUG site. measurably faster. All other factors being equal the result explains why Linux+old hardware Vs Vista or Linux on new hardware do-or not- what they do.
--- On Sun, 10/12/08, Christofer C. Bell <christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM, some [irrelevant guy] whose opinion is worthless wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 15:07, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Linux can run on modern quad-core processors, but you can strip it down to run on
[irrelevant nonsense]
[irrelevant guy], Leo doesn't care. He just wants to argue with you.
Actually I don't want to argue with [irrelevant guy]. I quite frankly don't want to hear anything he has to say. This is why I've put his E-mail in my Blocked Addresses list. And now that I no longer have to listen to his yammering voice, I'm filled with a sudden sense of peace and happiness, such that I'm seeing the world in an entirely new light. For example, NetNews really should have been taken out and shot ten years ago. That's how happy I feel right now.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 04:19:29PM -0500, Billy Crook wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 15:07, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Linux can run on modern quad-core processors, but you can strip it down to run on
FAIL. Nobody wants things stripped down. When people have to strip down their system to keep it fast, is is almost always because the hardware is old or underpowered. Obsolete hardware interferes with the wishes and productivity of the user. If you ripped all the seats and upholstery out of your car, you'd get better mileage, and faster acceleration. When you go to a drive-thru, you don't ask if you can have your cheeseburger faster if they skip the pickles. Nobody does
LETTUCE. I always ask them to skip the LETTUCE.
that, because people want the real deal. Strip out the ABS, power steering, the radio, etc... It might still run, and drive. NOBODY
I'm pretty sure that NASCAR doesn't have ABS, power steering, radio, etc. I'm also pretty sure they run, and drive.
WANTS IT THOUGH. And if you have to strip anything out, to make it work reasonably fast, the hardware is just slow, and old, and obsolete. New computers really aren't that overpriced. Buy some.
They might not be overpriced, but they still cost the same as a months worth of groceries, or a car payment. If I got rid of all my old computers, I'd be back to pencil and paper.
Linux is not magic Leo. It won't make a 200mhz Pentium Pro perform like anything manufactured in the last year, no matter how much you strip out.
Granted this isn't a 200mhz Pentium Pro (it's older and slower), but it does what I need. root@charon:~# uname -a Linux charon 2.6.23.9 #1 Tue Dec 4 17:23:50 CST 2007 i586 Pentium 75 - 200 GenuineIntel GNU/Linux root@charon:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model : 2 model name : Pentium 75 - 200 stepping : 5 cpu MHz : 100.296 cache size : 0 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 bogomips : 203.30 clflush size : 32 root@charon:~# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 11848 10812 1036 0 476 3372 -/+ buffers/cache: 6964 4884 Swap: 31144 1516 29628 root@charon:~# Thanks, -- Hal
--- On Sun, 10/12/08, Hal Duston <hald@kc.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 04:19:29PM -0500, [irrelevant guy] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 15:07, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Linux can run on modern quad-core processors, but you can strip it down to run on
[irrelevant, inevitably wrong,] [blanket overgeneralizations ] [deleted ]
I'm pretty sure that NASCAR doesn't have ABS, power steering, radio, etc. I'm also pretty sure they run, and drive.
And everyone is interested in how these featureless, bare-bones cars drive around in circles. Season Tickets to see these featureless cars drive around in circles cost hundreds of dollars. Meanwhile, hardly anyone wants to know what any given feature-rich Lexus is doing at any given point in time.
[irrelevant, inevitably wrong,] [blanket overgeneralizations ] [deleted ]
They might not be overpriced, but they still cost the same as a months worth of groceries, or a car payment.
Or a NASCAR Season Ticket to see featureless cars drive in circles around a track (Kansas Speedway price: $378 for the good seats, but Pit Passes cost extra).
If I got rid of all my old computers, I'd be back to pencil and paper.
Exactly. What people want to hear is "You won't have to spend any more money to get a better computer. In fact, use Linux on your existing old computer and you'll get a better computer and still be able to afford those NASCAR Season Tickets." They don't want to hear "Why on earth would you want NASCAR Season Tickets? Shut up and buy a new computer to get a better computer!"
[irrelevant, inevitably wrong,] [blanket overgeneralizations ] [deleted ]
Granted this isn't a 200mhz Pentium Pro (it's older and slower), but it does what I need.
Computers are only "garbage" if they can't do anything useful for you (much like most other things) which cannot be duplicated by a cheaper solution (hence "doorstop" is not a good use for a computer as a brick is cheaper, easier to move around, and does a better job).
root@charon:~# uname -a Linux charon 2.6.23.9 #1 Tue Dec 4 17:23:50 CST 2007 i586 Pentium 75 - 200 GenuineIntel GNU/Linux root@charon:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model : 2 model name : Pentium 75 - 200 stepping : 5 cpu MHz : 100.296
root@charon:~# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 11848 10812 1036 0 476 3372 -/+ buffers/cache: 6964 4884 Swap: 31144 1516 29628 root@charon:~#
I've got a similar system in the kitchen as the "cookbook" and general "type notes" computer, a PentiumI-90Mhz system with a whopping 16MB of RAM. I loaded icewm on it just because I occasionally enjoy playing Freecell while waiting for the cookies to finish baking (about ten minutes at a time). While there are those who may suggest that a deck of cards would be "easier", they're wrong. Cards stick together when you spill or set things on them, whereas the laptop can be closed quickly and stuff set on it without damage to the contents.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 23:25, Hal Duston <hald@kc.rr.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that NASCAR doesn't have ABS, power steering, radio, etc. I'm also pretty sure they run, and drive.
I don't know any NASCAR drivers personally, but I doubt they'd even actually want to drive their race cars to work every day and run errands, and do normal people things. I googled it, and they do have power steering, and more radio communications equipment than most consumer cars. ABS is forbidden by regulation, which almost sounds like they want to have crashes...
Granted this isn't a 200mhz Pentium Pro (it's older and slower), but it does what I need.
root@charon:~# uname -a Linux charon 2.6.23.9 #1 Tue Dec 4 17:23:50 CST 2007 i586 Pentium 75 - 200 GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
That's nice. I especially like that ram count. Here's mine: [bcrook@Zero ~]$ free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4065004 4035912 29092 0 19576 2597740 -/+ buffers/cache: 1418596 2646408 Swap: 2031608 0 2031608 [bcrook@Zero ~]$ ps aux | wc -l 332 [bcrook@Zero ~]$ netstat -tuan | wc -l 226 iostat: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 24.77 0.00 3.91 3.31 0.00 68.00 You must not ever edit home movies, photos, or use openoffice, or firefox, or flash player, or pidgin, or compiz I take it. You're just a special guy then. Because everyone else wants a more engaging experience. I use GNU screen, and vim and bash every day. They're great, but they don't pass the 'mom test'. I'm interested to know what "desktop environment" you use, of if you use X11 at all. Screen resolution?
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:06:09AM -0500, Billy Crook wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 23:25, Hal Duston <hald@kc.rr.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that NASCAR doesn't have ABS, power steering, radio, etc. I'm also pretty sure they run, and drive.
I don't know any NASCAR drivers personally, but I doubt they'd even actually want to drive their race cars to work every day and run errands, and do normal people things. I googled it, and they do have power steering, and more radio communications equipment than most consumer cars. ABS is forbidden by regulation, which almost sounds like they want to have crashes...
charon is also a specialized computer that I don't use for every day work.
Granted this isn't a 200mhz Pentium Pro (it's older and slower), but it does what I need.
root@charon:~# uname -a Linux charon 2.6.23.9 #1 Tue Dec 4 17:23:50 CST 2007 i586 Pentium 75 - 200 GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
That's nice. I especially like that ram count. Here's mine: [bcrook@Zero ~]$ free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4065004 4035912 29092 0 19576 2597740 -/+ buffers/cache: 1418596 2646408 Swap: 2031608 0 2031608 [bcrook@Zero ~]$ ps aux | wc -l 332 [bcrook@Zero ~]$ netstat -tuan | wc -l 226
iostat: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 24.77 0.00 3.91 3.31 0.00 68.00
You must not ever edit home movies, photos, or use openoffice, or firefox, or flash player, or pidgin, or compiz I take it. You're just a special guy then. Because everyone else wants a more engaging experience. I use GNU screen, and vim and bash every day. They're great, but they don't pass the 'mom test'. I'm interested to know what "desktop environment" you use, of if you use X11 at all. Screen resolution?
Gnome, generally, but yes, I was the last one to go X11, you can ask any of the other "oldtimers" and they'll confirm that. [root@pxe-client ~]# xdpyinfo |fgrep dimensions dimensions: 1600x1200 pixels (342x256 millimeters) [root@pxe-client ~]# That work for you? When I have to choose between eating and computing, it isn't a decision I have to think about. This machine was also the subject of a curbside discount. Thanks, -- Hal
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Hal Duston <hald@kc.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:06:09AM -0500, Billy Crook wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 23:25, Hal Duston <hald@kc.rr.com> wrote: consumer cars. ABS is forbidden by regulation, which almost sounds like they want to have crashes...
I'm guessing that it's a zero-day kind of thing. One car with ABS in a pack going 200mph could make a bad thing far worse when it comes time to do the braking. If they all had it -- like, the NASCAR gods issue a fiat stating that they will all have it, next season, by regulation -- that would be different, and I would not be surprised to live to see that day. I would engineer the whole track to turn on everyone's ABS simultaneously on a radio signal, possibly mechanically triggered by some kind of radio signal ceasing to arrive for a few ms from the first crashing race car. And NASCAR would be safer, and there would be cultural acceptance of automatic braking systems to prevent tailgating on highways, and when a white-tailed deer wanders onto I-70 it would have a better chance of making it to the other side. -- "Experience suggests that we reject Machiavelli, that we do not accept subservience, whether to princes or presidents, and that we examine for ourselves the ends of public policy to determine whose interests they really serve. We must examine the means used to achieve those ends to decide if they are compatible with equal justice for all human beings on earth." -- Howard Zinn
participants (6)
-
Billy Crook -
Christofer C. Bell -
David Nicol -
Hal Duston -
Leo Mauler -
Oren Beck