Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87295 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-30 22:28 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-06-07 01:33 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-30 22:28 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:51 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 04:23 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 02:26 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 06:41 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 03:37 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 07:46 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 08:55 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 12:07 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 10:14 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 13:06 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 11:12 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:45 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 05:13 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-06 18:30 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 20:49 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 02:00 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 09:07 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 02:11 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 09:10 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 02:15 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-06-01 12:20 +0300
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 09:38 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 02:20 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 11:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 23:58 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-04 11:47 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-04 11:57 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 12:53 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-05 17:35 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 16:42 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 00:06 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-06 10:35 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 03:35 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 13:39 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 14:41 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 00:04 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:34 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 21:24 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 01:46 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 03:09 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:17 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 01:33 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-10 11:53 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 18:52 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-10 21:47 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 02:58 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 01:36 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:46 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 07:52 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:52 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 01:16 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:28 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:42 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:40 +0100
[OT] Percetion of the USA abroad (was: Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 09:06 +0100
Re: [OT] Percetion of the USA abroad The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 12:03 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-10 19:22 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-10 21:48 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 00:57 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:27 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 18:28 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 02:54 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 01:27 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 10:57 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-06-07 08:00 -0700
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 16:35 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:48 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 00:53 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 08:26 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 23:06 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 00:11 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-09 17:42 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-06 10:39 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 03:44 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-05 23:55 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:47 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-07 13:58 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:39 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 23:00 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 04:36 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 02:30 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:19 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 23:53 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-08 14:23 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 02:28 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 18:24 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 02:40 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-10 19:17 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 00:56 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:24 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-08 22:42 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:45 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 01:44 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 03:08 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:07 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 01:03 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 10:43 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 10:52 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 00:33 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:03 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 02:42 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:31 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 03:16 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:54 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2026-06-08 21:46 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 04:50 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 03:16 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-09 08:49 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 01:48 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:11 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 01:32 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-10 05:38 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 10:49 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-10 11:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-11 03:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 04:36 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 08:37 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 02:54 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-08 14:12 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 01:30 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:15 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 14:30 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 23:38 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:22 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 00:28 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 04:03 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-06 18:42 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 08:53 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 01:53 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 08:52 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 01:41 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 06:41 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 03:07 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 13:28 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-06 19:16 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 05:18 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-07 18:59 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:51 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 04:56 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 16:43 +0800
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 08:48 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-31 10:16 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 10:22 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 06:38 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 03:04 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 13:32 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 11:34 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 14:01 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-09 20:29 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 22:52 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 04:36 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-10 08:48 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-06 09:17 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:57 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 16:11 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-09 20:30 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 00:19 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-10 00:22 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 04:18 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 01:33 -0400
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 01:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p0-dnQrPWuTdbbX3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87734 |
On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >>> >>> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >>> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. >> >> Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on >> our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive >> and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that >> much software either. >> >> But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went >> to Linux as soon as possible. >> >> DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software. > > I find dos software nicer than Linux software. Editors, for instance. > When I started on Linux, I was surprised that ctrl-arrow would not move > a word to the left/right, for example. Tons of MsDOS text software that > had menus and mouse support. Linux in 1998 felt old. DOS 1.x ... I had to WRITE 'sensible' text editors. Even did one in ASM for kicks (was younger then). However I do kind of understand what you're talking about. Too much UNIX/Linux stuff was oriented towards 'academics' and related. Weird, unfriendly to use, non-intuitive. M$, for all its other faults, DID seem to "get it". Hell, even some latter CP/M apps were a lot more sensible than UNIX stuff. "Just hit this meaningless four-key combo to go to the next line ..." Sorry, NO !!! Wanna hit Down Arrow and it's just DONE. Still have SOME of that MASM editor code somewhere, but not the entire product alas. It was kinda like "MousePad", which still beat the hell out of "edlin". Yes, there ARE still some here dedicated to those multi-combo-to-do- anything editors. That's THEIR choice. As much as possible I *disable* those so they won't come up even by accident. Anyway, despite temptations, we did not switch to SCO. Turned out to be a good thing. DID manage to avoid getting hooked on Apple stuff - saved a fortune and a life of servitude :-) But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. This was when in-house servers/networking were just becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed you for cash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 10:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rmknfmxd88.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87776 |
On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: > On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>>>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >>>> >>>> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >>>> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. >>> >>> Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on >>> our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive >>> and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that >>> much software either. >>> >>> But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went >>> to Linux as soon as possible. >>> >>> DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software. >> >> I find dos software nicer than Linux software. Editors, for instance. >> When I started on Linux, I was surprised that ctrl-arrow would not >> move a word to the left/right, for example. Tons of MsDOS text >> software that had menus and mouse support. Linux in 1998 felt old. > > DOS 1.x ... I had to WRITE 'sensible' text editors. > Even did one in ASM for kicks (was younger then). > > However I do kind of understand what you're talking > about. Too much UNIX/Linux stuff was oriented towards > 'academics' and related. Weird, unfriendly to use, > non-intuitive. M$, for all its other faults, DID seem > to "get it". Hell, even some latter CP/M apps were a > lot more sensible than UNIX stuff. > > "Just hit this meaningless four-key combo to go to > the next line ..." Sorry, NO !!! Wanna hit Down Arrow > and it's just DONE. MsDOS editors would apply meanings to ctrl-down or alt-down. Like go down a paragraph. > > Still have SOME of that MASM editor code somewhere, but > not the entire product alas. It was kinda like "MousePad", > which still beat the hell out of "edlin". Yes, there ARE > still some here dedicated to those multi-combo-to-do- > anything editors. That's THEIR choice. As much as possible > I *disable* those so they won't come up even by accident. > > Anyway, despite temptations, we did not switch to SCO. > Turned out to be a good thing. DID manage to avoid > getting hooked on Apple stuff - saved a fortune and a > life of servitude :-) I rejected Apple stuff very early. The student association at the uni made some deal with Amstrad, and we could get an Amstrad PC with two flopies at a reasonable price. I asked them what to choose, a PC or an Apple, and they said that with a PC they could help me to get software used at uni (meaning pirated copies), and that I could easily share stuff. So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. > But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get > me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. > This was when in-house servers/networking were just > becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff > much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed > you for cash. What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of Borland IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty years. So I did not... -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 10:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <88lnfmx239.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87795 |
On 2026-06-10 10:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: >> On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. > >> But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get >> me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. >> This was when in-house servers/networking were just >> becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff >> much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed >> you for cash. > > > What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of Borland > IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty years. So I > did not... I forgot to mention what I liked in Linux, coming from the MsDOS/Win world: it was multitasking in text mode, at the root. And it had a scripting language (bash) that was powerful. I no longer needed to attach several auxiliary programs to my batches. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 00:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5eGdndA1Et4Yp7f3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87795 |
On 6/10/26 04:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: >> On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>>>>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >>>>> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. >>>> >>>> Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on >>>> our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive >>>> and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that >>>> much software either. >>>> >>>> But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went >>>> to Linux as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software. >>> >>> I find dos software nicer than Linux software. Editors, for instance. >>> When I started on Linux, I was surprised that ctrl-arrow would not >>> move a word to the left/right, for example. Tons of MsDOS text >>> software that had menus and mouse support. Linux in 1998 felt old. >> >> DOS 1.x ... I had to WRITE 'sensible' text editors. >> Even did one in ASM for kicks (was younger then). >> >> However I do kind of understand what you're talking >> about. Too much UNIX/Linux stuff was oriented towards >> 'academics' and related. Weird, unfriendly to use, >> non-intuitive. M$, for all its other faults, DID seem >> to "get it". Hell, even some latter CP/M apps were a >> lot more sensible than UNIX stuff. >> >> "Just hit this meaningless four-key combo to go to >> the next line ..." Sorry, NO !!! Wanna hit Down Arrow >> and it's just DONE. > > MsDOS editors would apply meanings to ctrl-down or alt-down. Like go > down a paragraph. > > >> >> Still have SOME of that MASM editor code somewhere, but >> not the entire product alas. It was kinda like "MousePad", >> which still beat the hell out of "edlin". Yes, there ARE >> still some here dedicated to those multi-combo-to-do- >> anything editors. That's THEIR choice. As much as possible >> I *disable* those so they won't come up even by accident. >> >> Anyway, despite temptations, we did not switch to SCO. >> Turned out to be a good thing. DID manage to avoid >> getting hooked on Apple stuff - saved a fortune and a >> life of servitude :-) > > I rejected Apple stuff very early. > > The student association at the uni made some deal with Amstrad, and we > could get an Amstrad PC with two flopies at a reasonable price. I asked > them what to choose, a PC or an Apple, and they said that with a PC they > could help me to get software used at uni (meaning pirated copies), and > that I could easily share stuff. > > So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. 'Politics' (and Cheapness) ! :-) MAC and PC diverged - and never liked the Mac vibe. The PC world (and usually Linux) just seems to 'think' like I believe computers should think. Guess I'm "square". >> But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get >> me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. >> This was when in-house servers/networking were just >> becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff >> much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed >> you for cash. > > > What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of Borland > IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty years. So I > did not... Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient and fun ! Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM still - but it is kind of constrained to the 8/16 world. We need a "To_32/64" cross-compiler ! :-) Modern is the Lazarus/FPC environment - IF you can score sub-sub-versions of the various parts that will work together. BEST bet is their site, not current repos. Have had less success of late however. However I still write some stuff in Lazarus - quickest route to a decent working GUI app - and you can also just use it to make non-GUI FPC apps as well. If I have a good Python script that could use more tightening-up and speed ... I re-do it in Pascal. I like Pascal, seems "elegant" to me, 'speaks to the soul' perhaps. Will keep using it. Dr. Nick came up with something GOOD. ALSO have the old M$ Pascal and 'C' multi-pass compilers in that VM. Yes, they DO work and every once in awhile I write some little thing using them. But compared to a good development IDE they're terribly clunky. Have been TRYING to find a Modula-3 compiler - IDE or not - that will actually WORK in Linux. Two or three oft- mentioned ones but have NEVER been able to get them to do even a "Hello World" without a zillion weird errors. The Quebec one is most recommended, but still ... There's GNU M2 ... also odd ... but M3 was "better" and I still pref 'native compilers' over the GNU tricks. DID find a COBOL IDE ... gotta re-install it. Don't totally, or barely, love COBOL, but it doesn't hurt to keep yer hand in. "OpenCobolIDE" - last revision 10 years ago alas. Not too bad. For FORTRAN and 'D' and some others ... install CodeBlocks. Works most easily if you install the compilers first. Rather extensive IDE, almost TOO, that reminds of 'Visual' and the JetBrains products. Always use CodeBlocks when doing 'C'. Ah, try 'TCC' ... small, fast, suprisingly good and TIGHT. Of course there are still plenty of 'old' compilers, including 'B' - hey, it's ALMOST 'C' - and even its predecessors. Fun sometimes. 'Modern' like Rust ... mostly seem to be just less-readable versions of 'C' without any major advantages for my level of application. I'll do 'C'. MOST often do Python these days however, it's become very All-Purpose and has good string stuff. But it's not always "best" for EVERYTHING. Anyway, clearly we remember how clunky it COULD be - and how a few geniuses made that MUCH better. 2nd and 3rd-gen IDEs, you could get a lot of good stuff done FAST. Oh well, I've gone on too long .........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 06:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8v1d4F6jcgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87831 |
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:33:40 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient and fun ! > Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM still - but it is kind of > constrained to the 8/16 world. I was impressed by Turbo Pascal on CP/M -- the system, not the language itself. I also liked Borland's OWL and IDE for C++ Windows programming. C+ + Builder was a change in direction. Their dBase adventure didn't go well either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 02:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FBicnUQM2uprxbf3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87842 |
On 6/11/26 02:03, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:33:40 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient and fun ! >> Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM still - but it is kind of >> constrained to the 8/16 world. > > I was impressed by Turbo Pascal on CP/M -- the system, not the language > itself. I also liked Borland's OWL and IDE for C++ Windows programming. C+ > + Builder was a change in direction. Their dBase adventure didn't go well > either. I actually like the language itself - STILL do. "Turbo-C++" by whatever names ... kinda stuck to the more traditional 'C'. Apparently SOME people STILL use Turbo-C ... but it's really not compatible with the latest gens of chips/systems. CodeBlocks and related can provide a good IDE for C/C++ development that IS compatible. Not AS easy as the Borland product, but Good Enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 11:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qrbqfmx9me.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87831 |
On 2026-06-11 06:33, c186282 wrote: > On 6/10/26 04:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: >>> On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >> I rejected Apple stuff very early. >> >> The student association at the uni made some deal with Amstrad, and we >> could get an Amstrad PC with two flopies at a reasonable price. I >> asked them what to choose, a PC or an Apple, and they said that with a >> PC they could help me to get software used at uni (meaning pirated >> copies), and that I could easily share stuff. >> >> So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. > > 'Politics' (and Cheapness) ! :-) > > MAC and PC diverged - and never liked the Mac vibe. > The PC world (and usually Linux) just seems to 'think' > like I believe computers should think. Guess I'm "square". > >>> But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get >>> me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. >>> This was when in-house servers/networking were just >>> becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff >>> much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed >>> you for cash. >> >> >> What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of >> Borland IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty >> years. So I did not... > > > Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient > and fun ! Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM > still - but it is kind of constrained to the 8/16 world. > > We need a "To_32/64" cross-compiler ! :-) > > Modern is the Lazarus/FPC environment - IF you can score But it took almost two decades to come to the level Borland had by 1997. And no C IDE. > sub-sub-versions of the various parts that will work > together. BEST bet is their site, not current repos. Have > had less success of late however. However I still write > some stuff in Lazarus - quickest route to a decent working > GUI app - and you can also just use it to make non-GUI FPC > apps as well. > > If I have a good Python script that could use more tightening-up > and speed ... I re-do it in Pascal. I like Pascal, seems "elegant" > to me, 'speaks to the soul' perhaps. Will keep using it. Dr. Nick > came up with something GOOD. > > ALSO have the old M$ Pascal and 'C' multi-pass compilers > in that VM. Yes, they DO work and every once in awhile I > write some little thing using them. But compared to a > good development IDE they're terribly clunky. > > Have been TRYING to find a Modula-3 compiler - IDE or not - > that will actually WORK in Linux. Two or three oft- > mentioned ones but have NEVER been able to get them to > do even a "Hello World" without a zillion weird errors. > The Quebec one is most recommended, but still ... > > There's GNU M2 ... also odd ... but M3 was "better" > and I still pref 'native compilers' over the GNU tricks. > > DID find a COBOL IDE ... gotta re-install it. Don't > totally, or barely, love COBOL, but it doesn't hurt to > keep yer hand in. "OpenCobolIDE" - last revision 10 > years ago alas. Not too bad. > > For FORTRAN and 'D' and some others ... install CodeBlocks. > Works most easily if you install the compilers first. Rather > extensive IDE, almost TOO, that reminds of 'Visual' and > the JetBrains products. Always use CodeBlocks when doing 'C'. > Ah, try 'TCC' ... small, fast, suprisingly good and TIGHT. > > Of course there are still plenty of 'old' compilers, including > 'B' - hey, it's ALMOST 'C' - and even its predecessors. Fun > sometimes. > > 'Modern' like Rust ... mostly seem to be just less-readable > versions of 'C' without any major advantages for my level > of application. I'll do 'C'. > > MOST often do Python these days however, it's become very > All-Purpose and has good string stuff. But it's not always > "best" for EVERYTHING. > > Anyway, clearly we remember how clunky it COULD be - and how > a few geniuses made that MUCH better. 2nd and 3rd-gen IDEs, > you could get a lot of good stuff done FAST. > > Oh well, I've gone on too long ......... > :-) -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f_YVR.65226$GKib.62467@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #87708 |
On 2026-06-09, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. > > Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries > depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. And then there were the tricks you had to do when dealing with arrays larger than 64K. I had a lot of ugly pointer normalization and byte-by-byte copying code that I was only too glad to rip out when we got past those models. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | No artificial \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | intelligence was X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | used in the creation / \ if you read it the right way. | of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 03:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p0-dnQTPWuT_krT3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87748 |
On 6/9/26 14:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-09, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >> >> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. > > And then there were the tricks you had to do when dealing > with arrays larger than 64K. I had a lot of ugly pointer > normalization and byte-by-byte copying code that I was > only too glad to rip out when we got past those models. Yea ... WASN'T so easy back then ! :-) BUT, the IBM-PC and friends WERE The Future. OK, also Apple ... but .........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 09:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1105vvm$32n5j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87680 |
On 2026-06-08, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> By the time 8+3 became 12+3 became 128/256/1024 then naming >> constraints disappeared. Alas, esp M$, they TOTALLY disappeared. > > Ah yes, good old MICROS~1.. I eagerly anticipate the day Microsoft is ordered to split up following some antitrust ruling, if only because then one could propose the split-up parts be named MICROS~1,MICROS~2,...,MICROS~N. >> Several functionaries tended to use the entire first sentence of >> their docs as the file name - cut-n-paste ! :-) > > I once read in a description of the early Mac that said > "you could write a letter to Grandma in the file name". Any chance this is automated behaviour from the document editor? I seem to recall Word doing something like setting the Title or Subject in metadata to the initial text. But memory may be playing tricks &c.; no WINWORD here so I can't test right now. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn112ee2f.m8j.apple.universe@freight.zombinet> |
| In reply to | #87692 |
with <1105vvm$32n5j$3@dont-email.me> Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-06-08, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: *SKIP* [ 9 lines 3 levels deep] >>> Several functionaries tended to use the entire first sentence of >>> their docs as the file name - cut-n-paste ! :-) >> I once read in a description of the early Mac that said "you could >> write a letter to Grandma in the file name". > Any chance this is automated behaviour from the document editor? I > seem to recall Word doing something like setting the Title or Subject > in metadata to the initial text. But memory may be playing tricks &c.; > no WINWORD here so I can't test right now. Such endeavor would be hilarious (tricky part, is there WINE on x86_64 that will present i386 environment? but it's probably routine), you will need to go back for WW6.0; can't say anything about WW7.0; WW95 did something else (something like NONAME~1; didn't have to deal with it). My impression was: imagine result of filename generation starting from line consisting of 30 spaces and the word "APPROVED". At the end. -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 04:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <110862u$3nleh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87707 |
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 21:46:55 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: > My impression was: imagine result of filename generation starting > from line consisting of 30 spaces and the word "APPROVED". At the > end. Only 30? Linux filesystems seem to have standardized on allowing 255 bytes in a file/directory name. Whereas some Windows utilities restrict the entire pathname to that length.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 03:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zOCcnVNzd4hNILr3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87718 |
On 6/9/26 00:50, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 21:46:55 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote: > >> My impression was: imagine result of filename generation starting >> from line consisting of 30 spaces and the word "APPROVED". At the >> end. > > Only 30? > > Linux filesystems seem to have standardized on allowing 255 bytes in a > file/directory name. > > Whereas some Windows utilities restrict the entire pathname to that > length. Did. NOW seems almost "unlimited" - at least 1024. More space to fuck things up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 08:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvqzmg9mr6.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #87718 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > Eric Pozharski wrote: > >> My impression was: imagine result of filename generation starting >> from line consisting of 30 spaces and the word "APPROVED". At the >> end. > > Only 30? > > Linux filesystems seem to have standardized on allowing 255 bytes in a > file/directory name. Unless it’s an AF_UNIX socket, in which case you get 108 bytes including a 0 terminator for the whole sun_path. Which from time to time causes practical problems. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 01:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <I_qcncNV2ZW4NLr3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87692 |
On 6/8/26 04:54, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-06-08, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> By the time 8+3 became 12+3 became 128/256/1024 then naming >>> constraints disappeared. Alas, esp M$, they TOTALLY disappeared. >> >> Ah yes, good old MICROS~1.. > > I eagerly anticipate the day Microsoft is ordered to split up following > some antitrust ruling, if only because then one could propose the > split-up parts be named MICROS~1,MICROS~2,...,MICROS~N. Bill Gates quickly LEARNED - to GREASE your political reps. All his 'trust' problems then instantly disappeared. That's how realpolitik works ... Machiavelli would totally understand. As for what's become "normal" for M$ ... that's been a very long evolution/devolution. Everybody WANTED long file names, then REALLY long file names, so they GOT it for better or worse. Now for us that have to COPE with that mess ... well .... As said somewhere ... a number of workers just took to copy/paste the first sentence - including 'invisible' chars - from their word processor docs as the file name. Too many of THEM, too few of ME ... had to just COPE. Oh well, "job security" I guess. The New Guys can't program their way out of a wet paper bag ... so they just use/pay-for the wunnerful M$ "solutions" and think that's a-OK. Can't really trash them too much, that's Just How It's Done these days. My gen was bits and bytes, theirs is a different world (that WILL bite 'em bad eventually). But they'll just blame it all on M$ ... butts saved. That's how it works now. Kinda tragic ....... WHEN Vlad/Xi/Kim and friends really GO for it ... global DOOM. They'll try to recruit us Old Guys but, well, just TOO Old now ...... I'll "advise" a bit, for $500 an hour :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 11:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mv1lfmxelh.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87720 |
On 2026-06-09 07:48, c186282 wrote: > As said somewhere ... a number of workers just took to > copy/paste the first sentence - including 'invisible' > chars - from their word processor docs as the file name. > Too many of THEM, too few of ME ... had to just COPE. I seem to recall Libre Office or Open Office doing that automatically, as a suggestion. No special chars. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 01:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1OKdnWDXId1La7X3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87736 |
On 6/9/26 05:11, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-09 07:48, c186282 wrote: >> As said somewhere ... a number of workers just took to >> copy/paste the first sentence - including 'invisible' >> chars - from their word processor docs as the file name. >> Too many of THEM, too few of ME ... had to just COPE. > > I seem to recall Libre Office or Open Office doing that automatically, > as a suggestion. No special chars. Hmm ... was using LibreOffice Writer just today - TRYING to coerce it into doing proper mailing envelopes. Limited success - and the docs were confusing. However it didn't offer to use the first sentence as the file name. Writer knew what a #10 envelope is, my printer knows what a #10 envelope is - but ........ had to do really ridiculous tweaks to the template just to get the addressee lines up into the right place. I think it chose some OTHER kind of envelope by default even if you TOLD it #10. Wanted super-nice/clear address for the US Govt Internal Revenue people. Never got good marks for penmanship in school and that's never improved :-) Bought a 'label machine' - found a mystery PPD file. Haven't dared trying it yet. Not factory supported. Nobody loves Linux ! :-( And I *won't* install Winderz. Last one I kind-of liked was Win2K. Don't think that'll even run on modern hardware. Dealing with Win at work was just torture - so much depth and breadth of complication just to accomplish something kinda stupid. DO have a Win-1.x install as a VM somewhere ! Also have the BYTE mag with a REVIEW of it :-) Clue, better stuff for the C64/128 at the time ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 05:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4aee94ddda8d241b3ca5@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87777 |
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 01:32:36 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >On 6/9/26 05:11, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-09 07:48, c186282 wrote: >>> As said somewhere ... a number of workers just took to >>> copy/paste the first sentence - including 'invisible' >>> chars - from their word processor docs as the file name. >>> Too many of THEM, too few of ME ... had to just COPE. >> >> I seem to recall Libre Office or Open Office doing that automatically, >> as a suggestion. No special chars. > > Hmm ... was using LibreOffice Writer just today - TRYING > to coerce it into doing proper mailing envelopes. > > Limited success - and the docs were confusing. > > However it didn't offer to use the first sentence as > the file name. > > Writer knew what a #10 envelope is, my printer knows > what a #10 envelope is - but ........ had to do really > ridiculous tweaks to the template just to get the > addressee lines up into the right place. I think it > chose some OTHER kind of envelope by default even if > you TOLD it #10. > > Wanted super-nice/clear address for the US Govt > Internal Revenue people. Never got good marks for > penmanship in school and that's never improved :-) > > Bought a 'label machine' - found a mystery PPD file. > Haven't dared trying it yet. Not factory supported. > Nobody loves Linux ! :-( > > And I *won't* install Winderz. Last one I kind-of > liked was Win2K. Don't think that'll even run on > modern hardware. Dealing with Win at work was just > torture - so much depth and breadth of complication > just to accomplish something kinda stupid. > > DO have a Win-1.x install as a VM somewhere ! > Also have the BYTE mag with a REVIEW of it :-) > Clue, better stuff for the C64/128 at the time ... For Writer envelopes I would avoid the wizard once it starts being clever. Make a small Writer document with the page style set to the real envelope size, then position the address block explicitly with margins/paragraph spacing. Save that as a template and print one or two sacrificial envelopes or plain sheets held over an envelope to check alignment. For the label printer, a safe first step is to inspect the PPD before letting CUPS use it. It is just text, so look for the *NickName, *ModelName, and PageSize entries and make sure they look like your printer/label stock. Then add it as a separate test queue in CUPS rather than replacing a working printer. Print a CUPS test page or a tiny text label first, not the important letter. Also check whether the printer speaks driverless IPP/AirPrint or a common language such as ZPL/EPL/ESC/POS. Some label machines work better through that route than through an old vendor PPD. -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 10:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j1lnfmx239.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87777 |
On 2026-06-10 07:32, c186282 wrote: > On 6/9/26 05:11, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-09 07:48, c186282 wrote: >>> As said somewhere ... a number of workers just took to >>> copy/paste the first sentence - including 'invisible' >>> chars - from their word processor docs as the file name. >>> Too many of THEM, too few of ME ... had to just COPE. >> >> I seem to recall Libre Office or Open Office doing that automatically, >> as a suggestion. No special chars. Years ago, not now. I forgot to say. > > Hmm ... was using LibreOffice Writer just today - TRYING > to coerce it into doing proper mailing envelopes. > > Limited success - and the docs were confusing. > > However it didn't offer to use the first sentence as > the file name. > > Writer knew what a #10 envelope is, my printer knows > what a #10 envelope is - but ........ had to do really > ridiculous tweaks to the template just to get the > addressee lines up into the right place. I think it > chose some OTHER kind of envelope by default even if > you TOLD it #10. Printing envelopes is an art. I did manage to print envelopes, but from one time to the next I forgot the tricks. And I always fear the envelope will jam in my laserjet. So what I do is, I use envelopes with a transparent window, and a first page for the letter that matches that hole. > > Wanted super-nice/clear address for the US Govt > Internal Revenue people. Never got good marks for > penmanship in school and that's never improved :-) > > Bought a 'label machine' - found a mystery PPD file. > Haven't dared trying it yet. Not factory supported. > Nobody loves Linux ! :-( > > And I *won't* install Winderz. Last one I kind-of > liked was Win2K. Don't think that'll even run on > modern hardware. Dealing with Win at work was just > torture - so much depth and breadth of complication > just to accomplish something kinda stupid. > > DO have a Win-1.x install as a VM somewhere ! > Also have the BYTE mag with a REVIEW of it :-) > Clue, better stuff for the C64/128 at the time ... > :-) -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 11:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1BbWR.178518$DvK9.106109@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #87777 |
On 2026-06-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > And I *won't* install Winderz. Last one I kind-of > liked was Win2K. Don't think that'll even run on > modern hardware. Dealing with Win at work was just > torture - so much depth and breadth of complication > just to accomplish something kinda stupid. IMHO Windows' usability peaked somewhere between 2K and XP and has been going downhill ever since. In my job I have to write stuff that runs under Windows (I prefer to say it runs _despite_ it), but I just do back-end stuff (file handling, TCP/IP, etc.), not fancy GUI stuff. So I get by just fine using XP under VirtualBox on a Linux machine. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | No artificial \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | intelligence was X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | used in the creation / \ if you read it the right way. | of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web