Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151246 > unrolled thread

New hard drive

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-10 20:33 -0500
    Re: New hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-10 23:23 -0400
      Re: New hard drive Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-09-11 07:07 +0100
      Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 10:20 -0500
        Re: New hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-14 13:53 -0400
          Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 13:05 -0500
            Re: New hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-14 15:09 -0400
              Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 14:18 -0500
        Re: New hard drive Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-15 10:08 +0100
          Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-15 05:28 -0500
            Re: New hard drive Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-09-15 13:43 +0200
              Re: New hard drive Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 16:19 +0000
                Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-15 13:15 -0500
                  Re: New hard drive Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-16 07:04 +0000
                    Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-16 08:39 -0500
                      Re: New hard drive Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 14:52 +0000
                        Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-17 15:37 -0500
                    Re: New hard drive scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-16 13:42 +0000
                Re: New hard drive Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-09-15 15:34 -0400
                  Re: New hard drive Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-15 17:29 -0400
                  Re: New hard drive Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 22:00 +0000
                    Re: New hard drive Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:58 +0000
                      Re: New hard drive "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-17 00:43 -0500
                        Re: New hard drive Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 05:59 +0000
                        Re: New hard drive Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 11:51 +0000
                          Re: New hard drive hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 13:18 -0700
                            Re: New hard drive Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-09-17 19:15 -0400
                            Re: New hard drive "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-20 17:27 +1000
                        Re: New hard drive hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 13:13 -0700
                    Re: New hard drive Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-09-17 06:24 -0400
                      Re: New hard drive Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 11:51 +0000
                      Re: New hard drive Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 18:02 +0000
              Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-15 13:12 -0500
                Re: New hard drive Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 22:00 +0000
                  Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-17 19:29 -0500
                Re: New hard drive "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 10:29 +0100
                  Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-17 19:31 -0500
          Re: New hard drive Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 16:19 +0000
            Re: New hard drive Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:48 +0000
            Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-15 13:17 -0500
    Re: New hard drive "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-11 09:28 -0500
      Re: New hard drive scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-11 14:59 +0000
        Re: New hard drive Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-11 11:32 -0400
          Re: New hard drive Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-11 16:06 +0000
          Re: New hard drive scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-11 16:06 +0000
            Re: New hard drive "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-12 05:21 +1000
          Re: New hard drive "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-12 05:16 +1000
        Re: New hard drive "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-11 10:42 -0500
          Re: New hard drive scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-11 16:09 +0000
            Re: New hard drive Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-11 12:20 -0400
          Re: New hard drive "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-12 05:18 +1000
        Re: New hard drive "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-12 05:08 +1000
      Re: New hard drive "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-11 14:34 -0500
        Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-15 05:29 -0500
      Re: New hard drive terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-09-11 16:05 -0700
    Re: New hard drive Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-09-11 11:55 -0400
      Re: New hard drive Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-11 14:42 -0300
        Re: New hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-11 16:10 -0400
          Re: New hard drive Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-09-11 15:07 -0700
            Re: New hard drive sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-09-12 15:34 -0400
              Re: New hard drive Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-09-12 12:56 -0700
                Re: New hard drive Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-09-12 13:02 -0700
      Re: New hard drive "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-11 14:39 -0500
        Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 10:25 -0500
      Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 10:22 -0500
        Re: New hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-14 13:49 -0400
          Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 13:07 -0500
    Re: New hard drive hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-14 11:10 -0700
      Re: New hard drive philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 14:45 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#151466

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> On 15/09/2015 12:19 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote:
>>> In article <mt8roe$asb$1@dont-email.me>, philo  <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 09/15/2015 04:08 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:20:16 -0500
>>>>> philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
> . . .
> 
>>> 
>>> I tested Linux first on a re-assembled machine from previous top-of-the-line
>>> 386 servers, with _lots_ of memory and cache, and two _very_ fast ide
>>> disks, 110 and 120 mb. It was around two weeks after you didn't have
>>> to build the file system from minix anymore, where you could use a
>>> distro. My memory fails me of the name of this distro.
>>> 
>>> I got the character inteface up within a day, and struggled to get
>>> the display beyond svga, going into driver hell. I got 768x1024(?), but
>>> the display could do a lot more. That took a few months to sort out.
>>> 
>>>> Eventually I learned that in setting up the x-server...If I needed to
>>>> get /something/ going right away...VESA would usually work.
> . . .
>> 
>>> This driver hell has plagued the relationship between the open source
>>> and alternative OS vendors and the hardware pushers for decades.
> . .
>>> 
>>> New fancy hardware, requires magic software the hardware guys seem
>>> to think. So they guard the specs for the API interfaces, and the
>>> open source people have to reverse-engineer some proper drivers.
>>> The ones coming from the hardware vendors are uniformly shitty, at
>>> least in the firt 2 major versions. I have confirmation that this
>>> problem also plagues Microsoft, but they use their market muscle
>>> to force out specs and good drivers.
> . .
> 
>>> 
>>>> I never bothered to compile my own packages with one exception:
>>> 
>>> I did the kernel build with -Os and explicit options to build for
>>> the processor in use. It made a difference in speed. The processor
>>> was an 80386 with so high clock speed and cache memory (ISTR 8m
>>> cache, 16m real memory; we took all the cache chips from 8 motherboards
>>> that were being recycled).
> . . .
>>> 
>>> USB drivers seem to have been an exception from the rule above.
>>> Likewise, the fast ethernet (>= 1G) drivers seem to be seamlessly
>>> integrated into Linux.
>>> 
>> 
>> Display drivers are still a problem  My laptop has an ATI Radeon card and
>> driver support is still spotty.  What was especially annoying was that the
>> display worked fine for the install but I couldn't get it to work on the
>> installed system.  I finally had to give up on Redhat and switch to Ubuntu
>> to get it to work, and it took about six months!
>> 
> 
> Read this thread and remind me of the advantages of using open source
> distributions if your time is worth anything.
> 
> w..

The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
specific OS and not others.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151474

On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
> specific OS and not others.

FSVO "stupid".  If someone comes along (say, from Redmond) and offers
them a pile of money to support only one OS, and their goal is to make
a pile of money, it might not seem stupid at all.

-- 
/~\  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]

#151478

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mtddos22qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
>> specific OS and not others.
>
> FSVO "stupid".  If someone comes along (say, from Redmond) and offers
> them a pile of money to support only one OS, and their goal is to make
> a pile of money, it might not seem stupid at all.
>

My rule is that when things seem stupid, someone somewhere is making money 
out of it.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151481

On 2015-09-17, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mtddos22qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>
>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
>>> specific OS and not others.
>>
>> FSVO "stupid".  If someone comes along (say, from Redmond) and offers
>> them a pile of money to support only one OS, and their goal is to make
>> a pile of money, it might not seem stupid at all.
>
> My rule is that when things seem stupid, someone somewhere is making money 
> out of it.

Either that or some politician is getting his jollies.

-- 
/~\  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]

#151491

"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mtddos22qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
>>> specific OS and not others.
>> 
>> FSVO "stupid".  If someone comes along (say, from Redmond) and offers
>> them a pile of money to support only one OS, and their goal is to make
>> a pile of money, it might not seem stupid at all.
>> 
> 
> My rule is that when things seem stupid, someone somewhere is making money out of it.

Yes.  Call me stupid, but I believe in giving the customers what they want,
and maybe giving a certain  company the middle finger.  Actually, I would
have nothing against microsoft if it weren't for their actions to enforce
their virtual monopoly.  As one company among many I suppose they'd be OK.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151526

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 7:52:57 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

> Yes.  Call me stupid, but I believe in giving the customers what they want,
> and maybe giving a certain  company the middle finger.  Actually, I would
> have nothing against microsoft if it weren't for their actions to enforce
> their virtual monopoly.  As one company among many I suppose they'd be OK.

There's an awful lot about the overall M/S world I don't know, but I can't help but suspect that they should've been forced to separate the application side (e.g. Word, Excel, etc) from the operating system side.

Also, IMHO, their early mandate that computer makers buy a copy of DOS whether they actually needed it or not whould've been never tolerated.

But these days, an awful lot of business practices that IMHO are monopolistic are blessed by the government.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151532

On 17/09/2015 4:18 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 7:52:57 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass
> wrote:
>
>> Yes.  Call me stupid, but I believe in giving the customers what
>> they want, and maybe giving a certain  company the middle finger.
>> Actually, I would have nothing against microsoft if it weren't for
>> their actions to enforce their virtual monopoly.  As one company
>> among many I suppose they'd be OK.
>
> There's an awful lot about the overall M/S world I don't know, but I
> can't help but suspect that they should've been forced to separate
> the application side (e.g. Word, Excel, etc) from the operating
> system side.
>
> Also, IMHO, their early mandate that computer makers buy a copy of
> DOS whether they actually needed it or not whould've been never
> tolerated.
>
> But these days, an awful lot of business practices that IMHO are
> monopolistic are blessed by the government.
>

There is lots that can be or should be said for monopolistic marketing.
The division between applications and OS that has an implied conflict of
interest.

The DOS on every computer is a lot more difficult to criticize. If there
is a DOS on every computer sold no matter if it is used or not the
economics is interesting. A statistical number of customers will
actually use the product reducing costs. Everyone is entitled to support.
And most interesting the product may well be less expensive bought with
an un-used DOS than without.  Having been on the other side of this type
of pricing the cost per copy may be about 8% of the one of price.

The argument of course is, "I don't want it and I will never use it, why
pay for it" That comment is followed by detailed support questions that
are never asked by DOS customers.


The tradeoff for open source software is less than a man day if costs
are the issue.


w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151606

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:1496cf58-ef03-4dd0-9de9-daf19cf3be39@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 7:52:57 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Yes.  Call me stupid, but I believe in giving the customers what they 
>> want,
>> and maybe giving a certain  company the middle finger.  Actually, I would
>> have nothing against microsoft if it weren't for their actions to enforce
>> their virtual monopoly.  As one company among many I suppose they'd be 
>> OK.
>
> There's an awful lot about the overall M/S world I don't know, but
> I can't help but suspect that they should've been forced to separate the
> application side (e.g. Word, Excel, etc) from the operating system side.

That would have made no sense.

> Also, IMHO, their early mandate that computer makers
> buy a copy of DOS whether they actually needed it or
> not whould've been never tolerated.

There never was any such 'mandate'. The most they ever
did was  have a better price for licenses if the computer
maker included  DOS with all the machines they sold.

> But these days, an awful lot of business practices that
> IMHO are monopolistic are blessed by the government.

Can't think of any like that myself. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151525

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 1:43:55 AM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:
 
> My rule is that when things seem stupid, someone somewhere is making money 
> out of it.

Sometimes.

But over the years some of the crazy stuff that bubbled out of otherwise competent large companies has been amazingly bad, or the weak staff some of these companies sent out to customers also was amazing.

Some managers at large companies were arrogant, and thought if they issue an order, yell and scream, and bang their shoe on the table, their staff will somehow make a difficult or impossible function workable.  It doesn't always work that way, and some jobsites ended up being closed with eveyrone fired as a result of such management style.

Some smaller companies were hopelessly incompetent.  Somebody sees computers are a growing business and wants to get in on it, but really doesn't know anything, and hires weak people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151487

On 16/09/2015 6:00 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> On 15/09/2015 12:19 PM, Peter Flass wrote:

>>>
>>
>> Read this thread and remind me of the advantages of using open source
>> distributions if your time is worth anything.
>>
>> w..
>
> The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
> specific OS and not others.

Great trick hardware design that would exclude the use of
some specific (superior) software OS :)

Used to be that OS's not done until 1-2-3 won't run...

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151489

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> On 16/09/2015 6:00 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2015 12:19 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Read this thread and remind me of the advantages of using open source
>>> distributions if your time is worth anything.
>>> 
>>> w..
>> 
>> The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
>> specific OS and not others.
> 
> Great trick hardware design that would exclude the use of
> some specific (superior) software OS :)
> 
> Used to be that OS's not done until 1-2-3 won't run...
> 

Not exclude, but make it difficult.  New hardware is released constantly,
as someone pointed out often with no specs.  The manufacturer than supplies
only a driver for win. The system manufacturers integrate all the hardware
and software and then supply only one OS.  Sometimes, as in the case of my
Radeon drivers it takes some months before the open source system catches
up (and this system wasn't even bleeding edge, I got it at a steep discount
because manufacturers were switching to touchscreens for some version of
wonzoze or other).

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151517

On 2015-09-17, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

> On 16/09/2015 6:00 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> The only problem is that the stupid H/W vendors choose to support one
>> specific OS and not others.
>
> Great trick hardware design that would exclude the use of
> some specific (superior) software OS :)

Can you say UEFI?  (Didn't work, but nice try, Bill...)

> Used to be that OS's not done until 1-2-3 won't run...

Only the names have changed...

-- 
/~\  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]

#151393

On 09/15/2015 06:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:


<snipped but read>

>
> I did the kernel build with -Os and explicit options to build for
> the processor in use. It made a difference in speed. The processor
> was an 80386 with so high clock speed and cache memory (ISTR 8m
> cache, 16m real memory; we took all the cache chips from 8 motherboards
> that were being recycled).
>
>> Since RH5.2 did not have USB support, I compiled a USB kernel.
>> Unfortunately I never did get USB going. I found out many years later
>> that I might have needed to add a module (?) for the particular USB card
>> I added to the machine. Compiling a new kernel was still a good
>> excercise to have done.
>
> USB drivers seem to have been an exception from the rule above.
> Likewise, the fast ethernet (>= 1G) drivers seem to be seamlessly
> integrated into Linux.
>
> -- mrr
>
>


One more thing I recall.

After spending the whole day getting the x-server going...

I decided to try a small distribution that installed from something like 
7 floppies...called Monkey Linux.


No problem installing it and just for laughs, when I got to the command 
line I entered "startx" and was shocked when the system configured 
itself and ran a GUI...

Could not figure out why full distributions did not...by default...at 
least boot to some minimal GUI if so requested.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151467

philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 06:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
> 
> 
> <snipped but read>
> 
>> 
>> I did the kernel build with -Os and explicit options to build for
>> the processor in use. It made a difference in speed. The processor
>> was an 80386 with so high clock speed and cache memory (ISTR 8m
>> cache, 16m real memory; we took all the cache chips from 8 motherboards
>> that were being recycled).
>> 
>>> Since RH5.2 did not have USB support, I compiled a USB kernel.
>>> Unfortunately I never did get USB going. I found out many years later
>>> that I might have needed to add a module (?) for the particular USB card
>>> I added to the machine. Compiling a new kernel was still a good
>>> excercise to have done.
>> 
>> USB drivers seem to have been an exception from the rule above.
>> Likewise, the fast ethernet (>= 1G) drivers seem to be seamlessly
>> integrated into Linux.
>> 
>> -- mrr
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> One more thing I recall.
> 
> After spending the whole day getting the x-server going...
> 
> I decided to try a small distribution that installed from something like 7
> floppies...called Monkey Linux.
> 
> 
> No problem installing it and just for laughs, when I got to the command
> line I entered "startx" and was shocked when the system configured itself and ran a GUI...
> 
> Could not figure out why full distributions did not...by default...at
> least boot to some minimal GUI if so requested.

Drivers?
-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151533

On 09/16/2015 05:00 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 09/15/2015 06:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snipped but read>
>>
>>>
>>> I did the kernel build with -Os and explicit options to build for
>>> the processor in use. It made a difference in speed. The processor
>>> was an 80386 with so high clock speed and cache memory (ISTR 8m
>>> cache, 16m real memory; we took all the cache chips from 8 motherboards
>>> that were being recycled).
>>>
>>>> Since RH5.2 did not have USB support, I compiled a USB kernel.
>>>> Unfortunately I never did get USB going. I found out many years later
>>>> that I might have needed to add a module (?) for the particular USB card
>>>> I added to the machine. Compiling a new kernel was still a good
>>>> excercise to have done.
>>>
>>> USB drivers seem to have been an exception from the rule above.
>>> Likewise, the fast ethernet (>= 1G) drivers seem to be seamlessly
>>> integrated into Linux.
>>>
>>> -- mrr
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> One more thing I recall.
>>
>> After spending the whole day getting the x-server going...
>>
>> I decided to try a small distribution that installed from something like 7
>> floppies...called Monkey Linux.
>>
>>
>> No problem installing it and just for laughs, when I got to the command
>> line I entered "startx" and was shocked when the system configured itself and ran a GUI...
>>
>> Could not figure out why full distributions did not...by default...at
>> least boot to some minimal GUI if so requested.
>
> Drivers?
>



That was a long time ago, I don't recall what it used...but I'm guessing 
VESA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151486

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:12:40 +0100, philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 09/15/2015 06:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
>
> <snipped but read>
>
>>
>> I did the kernel build with -Os and explicit options to build for
>> the processor in use. It made a difference in speed. The processor
>> was an 80386 with so high clock speed and cache memory (ISTR 8m
>> cache, 16m real memory; we took all the cache chips from 8 motherboards
>> that were being recycled).
>>
>>> Since RH5.2 did not have USB support, I compiled a USB kernel.
>>> Unfortunately I never did get USB going. I found out many years later
>>> that I might have needed to add a module (?) for the particular USB  
>>> card
>>> I added to the machine. Compiling a new kernel was still a good
>>> excercise to have done.
>>
>> USB drivers seem to have been an exception from the rule above.
>> Likewise, the fast ethernet (>= 1G) drivers seem to be seamlessly
>> integrated into Linux.
>>
>> -- mrr
>>
>>
>
>
> One more thing I recall.
>
> After spending the whole day getting the x-server going...
>
> I decided to try a small distribution that installed from something like  
> 7 floppies...called Monkey Linux.
>
>
> No problem installing it and just for laughs, when I got to the command  
> line I entered "startx" and was shocked when the system configured  
> itself and ran a GUI...
>
> Could not figure out why full distributions did not...by default...at  
> least boot to some minimal GUI if so requested.

Took some rummaging with quite a few deadends, but it's here
http://ftp.pslib.cz/pub/monkey/docs/english.htm
(Monkey Linux version 6; last update 1997!)

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151534

On 09/17/2015 04:29 AM, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:12:40 +0100, philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 09/15/2015 06:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snipped but read>
>>
>>>
>>> I did the kernel build with -Os and explicit options to build for
>>> the processor in use. It made a difference in speed. The processor
>>> was an 80386 with so high clock speed and cache memory (ISTR 8m
>>> cache, 16m real memory; we took all the cache chips from 8 motherboards
>>> that were being recycled).
>>>
>>>> Since RH5.2 did not have USB support, I compiled a USB kernel.
>>>> Unfortunately I never did get USB going. I found out many years later
>>>> that I might have needed to add a module (?) for the particular USB
>>>> card
>>>> I added to the machine. Compiling a new kernel was still a good
>>>> excercise to have done.
>>>
>>> USB drivers seem to have been an exception from the rule above.
>>> Likewise, the fast ethernet (>= 1G) drivers seem to be seamlessly
>>> integrated into Linux.
>>>
>>> -- mrr
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> One more thing I recall.
>>
>> After spending the whole day getting the x-server going...
>>
>> I decided to try a small distribution that installed from something
>> like 7 floppies...called Monkey Linux.
>>
>>
>> No problem installing it and just for laughs, when I got to the
>> command line I entered "startx" and was shocked when the system
>> configured itself and ran a GUI...
>>
>> Could not figure out why full distributions did not...by default...at
>> least boot to some minimal GUI if so requested.
>
> Took some rummaging with quite a few deadends, but it's here
> http://ftp.pslib.cz/pub/monkey/docs/english.htm
> (Monkey Linux version 6; last update 1997!)
>



Good find

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151385

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:20:16 -0500
> philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
>> My first Linux install was on a 486 with a 170 meg HD and I did not 
>> install a GUI...just wanted to see if I could do it.
> 
> 	Mine came off about 50 floppies onto a 486DX25 with 16MB of RAM.
> I'd already had a unix on the box without TCP/IP for which I compiled X
> from the X11R5 distribution (building the missing half of the pseudo-tty
> transport to do so). Getting X up on Linux was *so* much easier.

I still recall installing OS/2 2.0 from floppies - more than once.  The
last gasp of floppies before CDs became common was a nightmare!  I think
OS/2 was about 20-25 disks.  The only good thing was you could read a
magazine and drink coffee while it was installing (this was pre-web).

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151389

On 2015-09-15, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:20:16 -0500
>> philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> My first Linux install was on a 486 with a 170 meg HD and I did not 
>>> install a GUI...just wanted to see if I could do it.
>> 
>> 	Mine came off about 50 floppies onto a 486DX25 with 16MB of RAM.
>> I'd already had a unix on the box without TCP/IP for which I compiled X
>> from the X11R5 distribution (building the missing half of the pseudo-tty
>> transport to do so). Getting X up on Linux was *so* much easier.
>
> I still recall installing OS/2 2.0 from floppies - more than once.  The
> last gasp of floppies before CDs became common was a nightmare!  I think
> OS/2 was about 20-25 disks.  The only good thing was you could read a
> magazine and drink coffee while it was installing (this was pre-web).

I did the mainframe version of this in the early '80s with the
Sperry->Unisys System 80.  Installation was from about 45 8-inch
floppies.  And we found out the hard way that if you got a read
error on disk 35, there was no option to restart the failing disk.
After a few repeats of the whole process - with the customer getting
more and more impatient - we coaxed head office to let us make a
copy of the bad disk from another customer's set.  We had to be
very careful about this - such copying was normally a firing offence.

-- 
/~\  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]

#151395

On 09/15/2015 11:19 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:20:16 -0500
>> philo <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My first Linux install was on a 486 with a 170 meg HD and I did not
>>> install a GUI...just wanted to see if I could do it.
>>
>> 	Mine came off about 50 floppies onto a 486DX25 with 16MB of RAM.
>> I'd already had a unix on the box without TCP/IP for which I compiled X
>> from the X11R5 distribution (building the missing half of the pseudo-tty
>> transport to do so). Getting X up on Linux was *so* much easier.
>
> I still recall installing OS/2 2.0 from floppies - more than once.  The
> last gasp of floppies before CDs became common was a nightmare!  I think
> OS/2 was about 20-25 disks.  The only good thing was you could read a
> magazine and drink coffee while it was installing (this was pre-web).
>



I've certainly installed OS/2 from floppies...and as to the piece of 
junk 486 I had...I also tried to install Win95 on it.


I started the install from cd but it was so slow that overnight, the 
installation never completed. I installed from floppies in a couple of 
hours.

Machine was useless however...but someone out of state wanted most of it 
for parts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web