Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153592 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300 |
| Last post | 2015-11-03 11:24 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 216 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 13:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:28 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-30 09:05 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:25 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:32 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-01 20:01 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-31 08:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:01 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:34 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:49 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:23 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:59 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:19 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 03:52 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 06:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-07 10:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 07:38 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 10:13 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:04 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-10 22:48 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-10 15:09 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-11 12:21 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-11 07:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:24 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:37 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-12 11:45 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-12 17:47 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2015-11-15 22:58 +0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-10 19:45 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-11 10:41 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-11 16:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-11 14:18 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:41 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-11 21:29 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:27 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2015-11-12 12:34 +0200
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-12 09:11 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:40 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-12 15:32 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-13 12:05 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:36 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Ingo Paschke <ipaschke@lpclabs.de> - 2015-11-08 11:46 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:23 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-08 13:46 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-11-08 19:14 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 12:26 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 12:45 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 08:49 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-09 00:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 06:13 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-11-09 13:48 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 21:09 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-11-10 10:01 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 15:55 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-11-10 17:40 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-10 13:15 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-10 14:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 06:24 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-08 17:45 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-09 11:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-09 13:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:01 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 12:08 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 14:49 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 13:40 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 09:48 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:19 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-10 08:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-10 12:10 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-10 16:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-10 17:42 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-10 12:10 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-10 14:16 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:32 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-07 19:32 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 13:06 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 06:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:59 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-03 17:29 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2015-10-30 20:27 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-30 21:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:19 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 16:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-02 12:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 19:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 21:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-03 14:03 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 21:11 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 20:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-30 19:53 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:09 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-31 12:02 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-01 09:42 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-01 13:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:45 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:06 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-03 22:06 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:43 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-03 23:46 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 04:31 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-04 07:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:28 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 03:49 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:23 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 04:35 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:24 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-04 09:55 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 12:42 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 14:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 11:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 16:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:55 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 18:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 18:48 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 13:05 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 11:52 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 19:36 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:15 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 21:35 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2015-11-04 21:07 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:52 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:56 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 03:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:02 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-08 11:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 15:33 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 11:39 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-05 20:44 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 06:19 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-06 07:02 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 09:01 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-05 00:09 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-05 08:01 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 06:49 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 06:56 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:27 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-30 14:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 11:05 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 11:58 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:26 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:18 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-31 10:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 07:08 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:27 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 10:51 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-31 15:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 13:10 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 17:01 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:19 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:39 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:37 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:26 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:40 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 07:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 20:28 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 11:11 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-31 14:57 +0300
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:19 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 16:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:14 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2015-11-01 18:52 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 13:11 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-11-02 03:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 15:36 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:15 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 06:56 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-11-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-02 14:27 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 09:31 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-02 10:53 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 07:19 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-02 09:50 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-02 10:30 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Mike Lander <mkl2379@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:00 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 12:24 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-11 19:10 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 11:24 -0500
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | tracymnelson@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 09:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c14a6337-2f25-4f62-8ff6-06bb1dabf185@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #154141 |
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:20:14 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > > And the original Mac had 128K of RAM. However, 2 megabytes for Windows 3.1 is > impressive enough by today's standards - and GEM, AmigaDOS, and early versions > of MacOS, especially that last, all had limitations compared to Windows 3.1 as > well. So I kept things simple by referring to the most well-known example. Memory management on early Macs was a nightmare. All memory was segmented, and could be moved around. So all memory access was a double-indirect operation through a segment mapping table. This made it possible to load "resource forks" (read-only data like icons and text strings) on-demand, flush them to free up memory, and load them again from disk (possibly into a different segment). I learned Mac development on a Quadra 700 with 8MB of memory and still had to jump through those arcane hoops, I can't imagine what it must have been like with only 128K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 14:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1qv0f$d1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154224 |
<tracymnelson@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c14a6337-2f25-4f62-8ff6-06bb1dabf185@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:20:14 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: >> >> And the original Mac had 128K of RAM. However, 2 megabytes for Windows >> 3.1 is >> impressive enough by today's standards - and GEM, AmigaDOS, and early >> versions >> of MacOS, especially that last, all had limitations compared to Windows >> 3.1 as >> well. So I kept things simple by referring to the most well-known >> example. > >Memory management on early Macs was a nightmare. All memory was segmented, >and could be moved >around. So all memory access was a double-indirect >operation through a segment mapping table. This made it >possible to load >"resource forks" (read-only data like icons and text strings) on-demand, >flush them to free up >memory, and load them again from disk (possibly into >a different segment). I learned Mac development on a >Quadra 700 with 8MB >of memory and still had to jump through those arcane hoops, I can't imagine >what it >must have been like with only 128K. You are simplifying how the Mac segmentation works. What you called the "segment mapping table" was a set of what Apple called "handles". The handles were pointers to pointers (I don't remember the details exactly) that were supposed to allow you to access things stored in memory even if the segement containing those items was relocated. The there were system calls that could compact the segments to one end of memory and reset the handles as necessary. If you needed a segment to stay put, you could "lock" it in place. Some calls to system routines might relocated segments; others not. You had to know which was which. All this "dancing a jig" with the memory was supposed to help out when there was very little memory available. You were advised to allocated a small segment (say 10kb) to keep in reserve... so when things hung up because of no more memory, you could release that segment and at least provide a graceful exit to the program. (Don't post through Google; get a decent interface to Usenet.) -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 08:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn4398e.7ec.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #154233 |
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:19:32 -0600, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > > You are simplifying how the Mac segmentation works. What you called the > "segment mapping table" was a set of what Apple called "handles". The > handles were pointers to pointers (I don't remember the details exactly) > that were supposed to allow you to access things stored in memory even if > the segement containing those items was relocated. The there were system > calls that could compact the segments to one end of memory and reset the > handles as necessary. This sounds like an advanced version of something I did on my old SC/MP system. The SC/MP has no direct addressing, all memory access is relative, which made position independant code a doddle. The problem was keeping track of things when programs were deleted and the memory compacted. Doing it all in less than 2K ram took a lot of careful hand-coding! Good fun...back in 1977... -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 12:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1smnq$rku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154276 |
"Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message news:slrnn4398e.7ec.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... > > This sounds like an advanced version of something I did on my old > SC/MP system. The SC/MP has no direct addressing, all memory access > is relative, which made position independant code a doddle. The > problem was keeping track of things when programs were deleted and the > memory compacted. Doing it all in less than 2K ram took a lot of > careful hand-coding! Good fun...back in 1977... AAARRRGGHHH!!!!! XPAH rears its ugly head again :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn446it.2gdn.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #154280 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:10:41 -0000, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > "Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message > news:slrnn4398e.7ec.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... >> >> This sounds like an advanced version of something I did on my old >> SC/MP system. The SC/MP has no direct addressing, all memory access >> is relative, which made position independant code a doddle. The >> problem was keeping track of things when programs were deleted and the >> memory compacted. Doing it all in less than 2K ram took a lot of >> careful hand-coding! Good fun...back in 1977... > > AAARRRGGHHH!!!!! > > XPAH rears its ugly head again :-) > > Quite! Someone at the time built (allegedly) an 8-processor SC/MP system but I've not been able to turn up any details - anyone know anything?? -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 17:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pcj9hc-j2i.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #154293 |
In article <slrnn446it.2gdn.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:10:41 -0000, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >> "Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message >> news:slrnn4398e.7ec.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... >>> >>> This sounds like an advanced version of something I did on my old >>> SC/MP system. The SC/MP has no direct addressing, all memory access >>> is relative, which made position independant code a doddle. The >>> problem was keeping track of things when programs were deleted and the >>> memory compacted. Doing it all in less than 2K ram took a lot of >>> careful hand-coding! Good fun...back in 1977... >> >> AAARRRGGHHH!!!!! >> >> XPAH rears its ugly head again :-) >> >> > >Quite! > >Someone at the time built (allegedly) an 8-processor SC/MP system but >I've not been able to turn up any details - anyone know anything?? I had the pleasure to use two multiprocessor Altos systems ca 1984, one for Unix with 3(?) 80(1?)86 processors (could have more) and one with 7+1 for MP/M, where one was a dedicated i/o processor, and the others were for user and os code. About half as good process/job isolation as in tops10. (which means, not a great deal, but easy to program around). The MP/M one was the build engine for my then (briefly) PPOE, it was around 5 times as fast as the PC/XT. It went grandfathered when (someone) bought into DR, and the MP/M was converted to a single user product. We were _very_ miffed, almost as much as when Livingston was bought out. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1t8e0$kk9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #154280 |
On 10/11/2015 7:10 AM, gareth wrote: > "Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message > news:slrnn4398e.7ec.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... >> >> This sounds like an advanced version of something I did on my old >> SC/MP system. The SC/MP has no direct addressing, all memory access >> is relative, which made position independant code a doddle. The >> problem was keeping track of things when programs were deleted and the >> memory compacted. Doing it all in less than 2K ram took a lot of >> careful hand-coding! Good fun...back in 1977... > > AAARRRGGHHH!!!!! > > XPAH rears its ugly head again :-) > > Now you know why I started to write compilers. It is stuff like that I just didn't want to remember. Figure it out once tell the compiler what to do and forget about it. Now it is ISA's that only a compiler can generate code for. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2129817131.468850838.781669.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #154276 |
Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:19:32 -0600, Charles Richmond > <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >> >> You are simplifying how the Mac segmentation works. What you called the >> "segment mapping table" was a set of what Apple called "handles". The >> handles were pointers to pointers (I don't remember the details exactly) >> that were supposed to allow you to access things stored in memory even if >> the segement containing those items was relocated. The there were system >> calls that could compact the segments to one end of memory and reset the >> handles as necessary. > > This sounds like an advanced version of something I did on my old > SC/MP system. The SC/MP has no direct addressing, all memory access > is relative, which made position independant code a doddle. The > problem was keeping track of things when programs were deleted and the > memory compacted. Doing it all in less than 2K ram took a lot of > careful hand-coding! Good fun...back in 1977... > The Intel 432 accessed all memory indirectly thru capabilities, too. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Q_m0y.5731$M%.3203@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #154281 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:19:32 -0600, Charles Richmond >> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >>> >>> You are simplifying how the Mac segmentation works. What you called the >>> "segment mapping table" was a set of what Apple called "handles". The >>> handles were pointers to pointers (I don't remember the details exactly) >>> that were supposed to allow you to access things stored in memory even if >>> the segement containing those items was relocated. The there were system >>> calls that could compact the segments to one end of memory and reset the >>> handles as necessary. >> >> This sounds like an advanced version of something I did on my old >> SC/MP system. The SC/MP has no direct addressing, all memory access >> is relative, which made position independant code a doddle. The >> problem was keeping track of things when programs were deleted and the >> memory compacted. Doing it all in less than 2K ram took a lot of >> careful hand-coding! Good fun...back in 1977... >> > >The Intel 432 accessed all memory indirectly thru capabilities, too. As does the Unisys Clearpath Libra systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 15:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <proto-7B200F.15325211112015@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #154224 |
In article <c14a6337-2f25-4f62-8ff6-06bb1dabf185@googlegroups.com>, tracymnelson@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:20:14 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > > > > And the original Mac had 128K of RAM. However, 2 megabytes for Windows 3.1 > > is > > impressive enough by today's standards - and GEM, AmigaDOS, and early > > versions > > of MacOS, especially that last, all had limitations compared to Windows 3.1 > > as > > well. So I kept things simple by referring to the most well-known example. > > Memory management on early Macs was a nightmare. All memory was segmented, > and could be moved around. So all memory access was a double-indirect > operation through a segment mapping table. This made it possible to load > "resource forks" (read-only data like icons and text strings) on-demand, > flush them to free up memory, and load them again from disk (possibly into a > different segment). I learned Mac development on a Quadra 700 with 8MB of > memory and still had to jump through those arcane hoops, I can't imagine what > it must have been like with only 128K. Easier because your mistakes would happen sooner. >;)( -- Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1ljkj01als@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #154126 |
On 2015-11-07, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-11-04, gareth wrote: > >> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message >> news:9ab3495e-74cb-4210-af22-459ad427a092@googlegroups.com... >> >>> Using RSX11-M, an operating system without a GUI, as the standard of >>> comparison >>> would not satisfy most computer users these days. >> >> I'd estimate about 8kBytes of code to make a GUI. ISTR the Amiga had >> such a thing. > > An A500 had 512 kB of RAM and 512 kB of ROM. I don't know how much of > that ROM was intuition.library, though. Also, the Amiga had specialized hardware (blitter, graphics coprocessor, etc.) that offloaded a lot of the work from the software. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 13:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9vrttFni1hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153904 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:9ab3495e-74cb-4210-af22-459ad427a092@googlegroups.com... > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:27:47 AM UTC-7, Paul Sture wrote: >> On 2015-10-30, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >> > "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message >> > news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me... >> >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >> >>> >> >>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know >> >>> what >> >>> is >> >>> happening >> >>> underneath. >> >> >> >> Don't agree. >> >> I'm running fine with 2GB. >> > >> > I rest my case. >> > >> > RSX11-M ran in about 20kB >> >> And RT-11 ran in even less. IIRC you could see 56KB free on a 64KB >> system. I'm not sure I want to go back to the sparsity of that. > > Windows 3.1 ran in 2 MB, and that, I would think, is reasonable by modern > standards. > > If you need multimedia, Windows 98 ran well in 64 MB. > > Using RSX11-M, an operating system without a GUI, as the standard of > comparison > would not satisfy most computer users these days. Windows 98, however, > now, > that *does* raise the question of why on Earth did we need to move to the > bloated versions we have to contend with today. (Note that Windows 98 also > supported USB.) It isn't that bloated at the small machine end, most obviously with smartphones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 06:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3r5ig.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #153904 |
On Wed, 2015-11-04, Quadibloc wrote: > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:27:47 AM UTC-7, Paul Sture wrote: >> On 2015-10-30, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >> > "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message >> > news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me... >> >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >> >>> >> >>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what >> >>> is >> >>> happening >> >>> underneath. >> >> >> >> Don't agree. >> >> I'm running fine with 2GB. >> > >> > I rest my case. >> > >> > RSX11-M ran in about 20kB >> >> And RT-11 ran in even less. IIRC you could see 56KB free on a 64KB >> system. I'm not sure I want to go back to the sparsity of that. > > Windows 3.1 ran in 2 MB, and that, I would think, is reasonable by modern > standards. > > If you need multimedia, Windows 98 ran well in 64 MB. > > Using RSX11-M, an operating system without a GUI, as the standard of > comparison would not satisfy most computer users these days. Windows > 98, however, now, that *does* raise the question of why on Earth did > we need to move to the bloated versions we have to contend with > today. (Note that Windows 98 also supported USB.) Like someone wrote upthread, we need it to run Firefox. I don't think I need more than 64 MB to run Linux with a GUI today, if I stay away from Firefox and bloated desktop environments. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9vb79FsgsvU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153892 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:19:05 +0100, Paul Sture wrote: > On 2015-10-30, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me... >>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know >>>> what is happening underneath. >>> >>> Don't agree. >>> I'm running fine with 2GB. >> >> I rest my case. >> >> RSX11-M ran in about 20kB > > And RT-11 ran in even less. IIRC you could see 56KB free on a 64KB > system. I'm not sure I want to go back to the sparsity of that. And I believe DOS/BATCH ran in even less! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OJOYx.14813$hD1.10568@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #153631 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message >news:n0vun0$9kt$2@dont-email.me... >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message >>> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ >>> Very well said. >>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a >>> retina >>> display, >>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can >>> control >>> from the >>> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in >>> 1971. >>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has >>> progressed, I feel more >>> and more divorced from the computers that I love. >> >> Simple cure. Run Linux. >> Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM. > >Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what is >happening >underneath. Beg to differ. However, systemd is the first step towards megabloat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <78b4ab2383a93a3-a7fd2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #153641 |
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:33:18PM +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message > >news:n0vun0$9kt$2@dont-email.me... > >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >>> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > >>> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ > >>> Very well said. > >>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a > >>> retina > >>> display, > >>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can > >>> control > >>> from the > >>> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in > >>> 1971. > >>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has > >>> progressed, I feel more > >>> and more divorced from the computers that I love. > >> > >> Simple cure. Run Linux. > >> Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM. > > > >Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what is > >happening > >underneath. > > Beg to differ. > > However, systemd is the first step towards megabloat. I used to be able to maintain and upgrade my Linux system from the individually distributed sources. Around 2002 or so that became impractical; I recall attempting to integrate Gnome into my build process and becoming bogged down in endless third-party dependencies. It is much worse today. I do not even know what is all installed on my various systems. On one, /usr/bin holds 2500 entries and weighs in at 400MB. With the exception of the compiler and related tools they are stripped of debug sections. The installed system is 9G including log files and such. It is impractical to expect that I could reasonably inspect the system to positively ascertain that there is no malware included with it. To make matters worse, I run 7 virtual machines (in 8G) which are made up of a heterogenous collection of Linux distributions. Four are running with less than 512M RAM. Even the "small" linux distributions are quite large, although it may at least be said that they are practical for older computers. When I could at least compile everything from sources it was still impractical to verify all of the code for security purposes. And of course if the TLA community can do a MITM attack on you, they can substitute their own version of Ubuntu when you go to download the latest and greatest. SSL only helps you if the root CA is uncompromised, and if your client-side certificate DB is also unmolested. So not only do we have to contend with massive software bloat, but it is essentially impossile to review and verify it all. -- The practitioners of Freemasonry are the rabid Islamic extremists of Christiandom. Heroin makes them invincible and all-knowing, and therefore superior to mere mortals. Their primary distinguishing characteristic is the habit of Orwellian doublethink which permits them to be uncivilized while faking participation in civil society. Pound for pound they are umatched for sheer density of stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1aquh$5t5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153749 |
In article <78b4ab2383a93a3-a7fd2@gmail.com>, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >I used to be able to maintain and upgrade my Linux system from the >individually distributed sources. Around 2002 or so that became >impractical; I recall attempting to integrate Gnome into my build >process and becoming bogged down in endless third-party dependencies. >It is much worse today. I was using Linux From Scratch for a bit, after starting way back when with SLS (downloaded onto a stack of 5.25" floppies) and then Slackware and SuSE. When looking for something to automate LFS, I stumbled across Gentoo. Aside from a brief detour into Ubuntu (still on one of my notebooks) and Raspbian (on the obvious platform), it's been all Gentoo ever since. It's been much easier to just punch in "emerge -auND world" every once in a while and let the system figure out dependencies than to have to chase down all of them manually. The only downside is that compiling from source can take a while, but I suspect you knew that already. That said, I even have Gentoo running on the Raspberry Pi (and compiled on the Raspberry Pi too, not cross-compiled). >I do not even know what is all installed on my various systems. equery list \* ...or, if you just want to see what packages you've added to the base system, skipping the base-system components and dependencies: sudo cat /var/lib/portage/world _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153631 |
In comp.misc gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:n0vun0$9kt$2@dont-email.me... > > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > >> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ > >> Very well said. > >> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a > >> retina > >> display, > >> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can > >> control > >> from the > >> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in > >> 1971. > >> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has > >> progressed, I feel more > >> and more divorced from the computers that I love. > > > > Simple cure. Run Linux. > > Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM. > Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know > what is happening underneath. The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes on my 64-bit Slackware system here. That is not even a megabyte yet. Its (fvwm2) core usage, according to top, is 168m. That is a far cry from "firefox the bloated" which is currently using 1,895m and is the #1 consumer of memory (X is number 2, at a paltry 304m, part of which is video card memory mmap'ed into the process that top counts towards the process). Now, knowing everything that is happening underneath, yeah, that is a much harder task.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10fth$d0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153643 |
"Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... > The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 20:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #153648 |
Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth: > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes > > Why? > > Because it is from another era?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web