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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90485 > unrolled thread

Ancient History

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:41 +0000
    Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 03:15 -0400
      Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-25 08:19 -0700
        Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 19:57 +0100
          Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:25 -0400
            Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:33 +0100
            Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:20 +0000
              Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:27 +0100
                Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 01:13 +0000
                  Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:24 -0400
                    Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 20:03 +0000
                      Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 23:47 -0400
                        Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 06:54 +0000
                          Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-28 09:28 -0700
                            Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 18:53 +0100
                              Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 13:11 +0100
                                [OT] Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 13:20 +0100
                            Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 20:58 +0000
                              Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-28 14:49 -0700
                                Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 05:41 +0000
                                  Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:00 -0400
                                    Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:00 +0100
                                      Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 21:55 +0000
                                        Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-30 09:02 +1000
                                          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-30 06:28 +0000
                                            Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 09:15 +0100
                                              Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-30 19:28 +0000
                                                Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-31 03:41 -0400
                                                  Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-31 15:50 +0000
                                            Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-31 00:56 -0400
                                              Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-31 19:09 +0000
                                                Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-01 01:15 -0400
                                        Re: Ancient History "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-30 13:56 +0200
                                          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-30 19:10 +0000
                                            Re: Ancient History "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-30 21:32 +0200
                                              Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-31 02:57 +0000
                                          Re: Ancient History Philippe <p.naudin+nntp@free.fr> - 2026-08-31 09:07 +0200
                                            Re: Ancient History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-31 08:37 +0000
                                            Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:52 +0200
                                    Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 21:46 +0000
                                  Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 09:57 +0100
                                    Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-30 09:17 +1000
                                    Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 11:12 -0700
                                  Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 11:01 -0700
                                    Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-31 19:28 +0100
                                      Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 11:35 -0700
                                      Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-31 20:19 +0000
                                        Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 13:52 -0700
                                      Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-31 22:39 +0000
                        Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:11 +0100
    Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:41 +0200
      Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:53 +0100
        Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:54 +0100
          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:25 +0000
        Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 14:23 +0200
          Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:28 -0400
            Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:12 +0100
              Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:26 +0000
                Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:56 -0400
                  Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 12:00 +0100
                  Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 20:25 +0000
                    Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-27 21:48 +0000
                      Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:26 -0400
                        Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 06:59 +0000
                          Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:05 +0100
                            Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 21:02 +0000
                              Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:03 +0100
                                Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 22:33 +0000
                                  Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 17:58 +0100
                      Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:03 +0100
                    Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:06 -0400
                      Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:08 +0100
                        Re: Ancient History "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:45 +0200
                          Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:42 +0100
                          Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 21:59 -0400
                            Re: Ancient History "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-30 14:15 +0200
                              Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-31 01:32 -0400
                                Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:54 +0200
                                  Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:19 +0100
                                    Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-31 13:50 +0200
                                      Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-31 13:04 +0100
                                Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:18 +0100
                                  Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-31 15:50 +0000
                            Metformin (Re: Ancient History) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-30 09:37 -0700
                    Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:03 +0100
                      Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-28 12:07 -0400
                        Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 21:00 +0000
                          Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:22 -0400
                          Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:01 +0100
                          Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-29 10:01 -0400
                            Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 22:02 +0000
            Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:23 +0000
              Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:29 +0100
      Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:31 +0100
        Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-25 07:53 -0400
        Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:37 +0000
      Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:16 +0000
        Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0100
          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:40 +0000
    Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:30 +0100
      Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:49 -0400
    Re: Ancient History "Mr. Chang Man-wai" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-08-25 20:07 +0800
    Re: Ancient History Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:20 -0400
      Re: Ancient History Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-25 17:44 +0000
      Re: Ancient History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:55 +0000
    Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-27 08:59 +1000
      Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 01:20 +0000
        Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:38 -0400
          Re: Ancient History vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-27 08:08 +0000
            Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:13 -0400
              Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:24 +0000
      Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:21 -0400
        Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-28 08:58 +1000
          Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:36 -0400
          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:42 +0000
            Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 02:37 -0400
            Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-29 07:40 +1000
              Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:03 -0400
              Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:06 +0100
    Re: Ancient History Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-28 08:59 +0100
      Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 00:19 -0400

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#90802

On 29/08/2026 06:41, rbowman wrote:
> JavaScript is used by 98.7% of all websites as of 2023"
> 
> I see that 98.x % on so many sites I'm a little suspicious. Some sites may
> use the <noscript/> tag to provide alternate functionality but speaking as
> someone who has done so web development, ain't gonna happen.

HTML was never designed for an interactive experience.

E.g. Reloading a whole page explicitly after making a single change to 
an option is massively slow and clunky. Using AJAX is seamless and 
invisible.
Example. I have a web page where configurations are updated. You select 
the values and...

...that's it. There is no update or submit button at all. If you 
selected it, it's updated.

And that is the point. Properly used JavaScript or equivalent is a huge 
improvement.
The problem is its misuse to obfuscate or to insert content you did not 
request or want

-- 
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll 
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

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

#90872

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 29/08/2026 06:41, rbowman wrote:
>> JavaScript is used by 98.7% of all websites as of 2023"
>> 
>> I see that 98.x % on so many sites I'm a little suspicious. Some sites may
>> use the <noscript/> tag to provide alternate functionality but speaking as
>> someone who has done so web development, ain't gonna happen.
> 
> HTML was never designed for an interactive experience.

Yes, so I wish people would stop trying to make webpages
interactive when they don't need to be.

> E.g. Reloading a whole page explicitly after making a single change to 
> an option is massively slow and clunky. Using AJAX is seamless and 
> invisible.
> Example. I have a web page where configurations are updated. You select 
> the values and...
> 
> ...that's it. There is no update or submit button at all. If you 
> selected it, it's updated.

Yeah, and I hate those because when it fails they usually make it
look like it worked anyway, so you don't know unless you manually
reload the page, which takes an age because it's 3MB of Javascript
and locally-processed data that has to be redownloaded and
inefficiently processed to show what could have been in 20KB of
plain HTML in a simple webpage sent back in the blink of an eye. Or
of course you reload and it resets back to a different view
entirely.

If you're running it on a LAN or localhost, like CUPS (though I
avoid that too), fine, otherwise give me back my submit button!

> And that is the point. Properly used JavaScript or equivalent is a huge 
> improvement.
> The problem is its misuse to obfuscate or to insert content you did not 
> request or want

No, that's just the start of the problems.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

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

#90970

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 09:57:49 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> HTML was never designed for an interactive experience.
> 
> E.g. Reloading a whole page explicitly after making a single change
> to an option is massively slow and clunky. Using AJAX is seamless and 
> invisible.

...which would be why well-designed HTML forms group related options
together onto a single page, so you can make multiple changes at once.

> Example. I have a web page where configurations are updated. You
> select the values and...
> 
> ...that's it. There is no update or submit button at all. If you 
> selected it, it's updated.

They aren't mutually exclusive; people have been doing AJAX forms with
basic-HTML fallback for *years.* That way they can offer the prettied-
up one-touch experience and still function for users whose browser
can't run scripts (or is configured not to.)

> And that is the point. Properly used JavaScript or equivalent is a
> huge improvement.
> The problem is its misuse to obfuscate or to insert content you did
> not request or want

Sure* - but bad actors are so omnipresent on the Internet that some of
us prefer to disable it altogether unless absolutely necessary. Hence
the existence of JS whitelist plugins.

* (Also, in addition to the actively malevolent, there's the merely
  incompetent - sites with scripting so bloated and poorly optimized
  that even a harmless page can bring the browser to its knees.)

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

#90969 — Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History)

On 29 Aug 2026 05:41:04 GMT
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> > This is also not really true; it may or may not be harder to do
> > without dynamically rendering the whole thing client-side, but it's
> > certainly possible. Google Maps functioned that way for years.  
> 
> https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/overview
> 
> Google Maps used a JavaScript API for as long as I can remember.

It *used* JS from the start, yes, which is all well and good - but back
when they still employed engineers who gave a crap about graceful
degradation, you could still get a reasonable modicum of functionality
without it. Then one day, bam, you go there with JS disabled and you
get a big ol' nothing of a page with a "fuck you, do it our way"
message instead.

> JavaScript is used by 98.7% of all websites as of 2023"
> 
> I see that 98.x % on so many sites I'm a little suspicious. Some
> sites may use the <noscript/> tag to provide alternate functionality
> but speaking as someone who has done so web development, ain't gonna
> happen. 

Speaking as one who's been a NoScript user for north of twenty years,
it definitely does, commonly enough for my purposes at least. Some of
them may indeed provide a specific alternative, but of the ones that
don't, most are either functional enough via standard HTML forms, or
pages that I only need the static page content on.

And when I *do* encounter a page that's totally non-functional without
it, well, that's a good opportunity to ask myself whether I really want
it that much anyway.

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

#90971 — Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History)

John Ames wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
> 
>> Google Maps used a JavaScript API for as long as I can remember.
> 
> It *used* JS from the start, yes, which is all well and good - but back
> when they still employed engineers who gave a crap about graceful
> degradation
When I first saw google maps, I thought "that's good, what a pity 
they've used flash" and was amazed to find they hadn't ...

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

#90973 — Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History)

On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 19:28:18 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> When I first saw google maps, I thought "that's good, what a pity 
> they've used flash" and was amazed to find they hadn't ...

As with most Google products, it launched in pretty nearly its ideal
form, and has gotten worse with every subsequent revision :/

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

#90979 — Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History)

On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 19:28:18 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> John Ames wrote:
> 
>> rbowman wrote:
>> 
>>> Google Maps used a JavaScript API for as long as I can remember.
>> 
>> It *used* JS from the start, yes, which is all well and good - but back
>> when they still employed engineers who gave a crap about graceful
>> degradation
> When I first saw google maps, I thought "that's good, what a pity
> they've used flash" and was amazed to find they hadn't ...

I'm not particularly prescient but I'm glad I never got into Flash, 
SilverLight, or some of the other stuff that was left dead by the side of 
the road. I did play with Java applets but lost interest in Java before 
getting committed. 

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

#90980 — Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History)

On 31 Aug 2026 20:19:19 GMT
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> > When I first saw google maps, I thought "that's good, what a pity
> > they've used flash" and was amazed to find they hadn't ...  
> 
> I'm not particularly prescient but I'm glad I never got into Flash, 
> SilverLight, or some of the other stuff that was left dead by the
> side of the road.

Flash at least had its uses. In fact, it's somehow *still* the best
available solution for redistributable interactive multimedia content;
HTML5 took over its mainstream niche for embedded multimedia (read:
banner ads,) but it's non-trivial to redistribute a webpage the way you
can with an SWF (some of the browser-based choose-your-own-adventure
frameworks have more or less gotten it down, but HTML's limitation to
plaintext on the backend means that any embedded media has to be base-
64 encoded, which balloons file sizes by about 33%.)

Silverlight OTOH was never anything more than a blatant me-too on MS's
part; anyone could smell the impending vendor lock-in from a mile off.

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

#90981 — Re: Javascript whitelisting (was Re: Ancient History)

On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 19:28:18 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> When I first saw google maps, I thought "that's good, what a pity
> they've used flash" and was amazed to find they hadn't ...

A key component of AJAX was XMLHttpRequest, invented by Microsoft at
the start of this century
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest>.

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

#90744

On 28/08/2026 04:47, c186282 wrote:
> I just skipped Java and especially JS ... bad
>    to write, slow to run, just not something I
>    would like. Tossed all my Java/JS books when
>    I retired.

Sadly I need JavaScript - I write a lot of web controlled stuff for my 
home systems

It is horrible. But mostly it works

Likewise PHP.

-- 
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

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

#90507

On 2026-08-25 06:41, rbowman wrote:
> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario
> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II.
> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB
> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it
> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
> 
> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax
> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very
> specific.
> 
> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it
> boots at all.
> 
> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came
> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB,
> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the
> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was
> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I
> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
> 

Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble running 
SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#90514

On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-08-25 06:41, rbowman wrote:
>> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
>> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario
>> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II.
>> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB
>> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
>> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it
>> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
>>
>> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax
>> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very
>> specific.
>>
>> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it
>> boots at all.
>>
>> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came
>> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB,
>> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the
>> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was
>> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I
>> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
>>
>
> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble
> running SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.

I used the same machine for Windows 98 and GNU/Linux. Granted, it
started with 64 MiB and was at some point upgraded to at least 256 MiB
(and later a bit more). That Pentium II Slot 1 machine was in use as the
main desktop until 2008 (by then running Debian for 1-2 years, IIRC),
while I at some point used KDE 3, it was happy with that amount of
memory (and could also run e.g. OOo; a laptop with 64 MiB was a bit of a
different story), and life became easier as at some point I moved away
from DEs.

But this is already more than 48 MiB, and probably at a sweet point
where it was enough memory for the kernel, X11 and applications.

The biggest challenge was updating (compiling, Gentoo) GCC because of
insn_attrtab.c [1] :-D

Other challenges IIRC included Firefox coping with a larger amount of
open tabs (although it still behaved much better than nowadays), and in
one specific use case, Egacs, er, Emacs.


Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
nice interface usually with light resource requirements. I think the
only slowdown I remember was browsing DVD media in the Windows Explorer,
and I have no idea if that was a Windows issue in itself or something
with that specific optical drive. It's no Windows NT, but there's
probably a reason it tends to be fondly remembered, even with MICROS~1
being MICROS~1 (they've, for example, IIRC not released the fix for
KB312108 (NDIS "Protection Error" on fast enough CPUs [2]), instead
making it available on request through their support channels... (I have
no idea if this was on ftp.microsoft.com, I suppose it's possible it was
there despite this?)).

[1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442> (behind Anubis)
[2] <http://web.archive.org/web/20040513001718/http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312108>

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#90530

On 25/08/2026 11:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
> nice interface usually with light resource requirements.

Yes. I knew people who ran that - I was on it until I got XP - and yes, 
it blue screened and crashed and locked up but when it worked it was 
sorta OK. Needed 16MB of RAM. And a 466 or Pentium, Think I had an AMD

I cant remember how big my first *desktop* linux machine was - I'd 
deployed it on a NAS already - but 256MB rings a bell.



-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

#90565

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 12:54:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 25/08/2026 11:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
>> nice interface usually with light resource requirements.
> 
> Yes. I knew people who ran that - I was on it until I got XP - and yes,
> it blue screened and crashed and locked up but when it worked it was
> sorta OK. Needed 16MB of RAM. And a 466 or Pentium, Think I had an AMD
> 
> I cant remember how big my first *desktop* linux machine was - I'd
> deployed it on a NAS already - but 256MB rings a bell.

I installed Slackware from floppies on something. but I can't remember 
what. I also installed Mandrake from the shrik wrapped box set but it 
certainly wasn't on the Compaq.

https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4801

That recommends 128 or preferably 256 MB. KDE was fat by 2001.

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

#90534

On 2026-08-25 12:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-08-25 06:41, rbowman wrote:
>>> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
>>> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario
>>> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II.
>>> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB
>>> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
>>> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it
>>> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
>>>
>>> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax
>>> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very
>>> specific.
>>>
>>> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it
>>> boots at all.
>>>
>>> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came
>>> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB,
>>> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the
>>> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was
>>> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I
>>> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
>>>
>>
>> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble
>> running SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
> 
> I used the same machine for Windows 98 and GNU/Linux. Granted, it
> started with 64 MiB and was at some point upgraded to at least 256 MiB

The machine I was talking above had much less than that. I think one 
machine had 5 MiB, later had another with maybe 8 or 16. I don't 
remember for sure.

Not 98, after 95 I had Me.

> (and later a bit more). That Pentium II Slot 1 machine was in use as the
> main desktop until 2008 (by then running Debian for 1-2 years, IIRC),
> while I at some point used KDE 3, it was happy with that amount of
> memory (and could also run e.g. OOo; a laptop with 64 MiB was a bit of a
> different story), and life became easier as at some point I moved away
> from DEs.
> 
> But this is already more than 48 MiB, and probably at a sweet point
> where it was enough memory for the kernel, X11 and applications.
> 
> The biggest challenge was updating (compiling, Gentoo) GCC because of
> insn_attrtab.c [1] :-D
> 
> Other challenges IIRC included Firefox coping with a larger amount of
> open tabs (although it still behaved much better than nowadays), and in
> one specific use case, Egacs, er, Emacs.

FFx caused trashing.


> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
> nice interface usually with light resource requirements. I think the
> only slowdown I remember was browsing DVD media in the Windows Explorer,
> and I have no idea if that was a Windows issue in itself or something
> with that specific optical drive. It's no Windows NT, but there's
> probably a reason it tends to be fondly remembered, even with MICROS~1
> being MICROS~1 (they've, for example, IIRC not released the fix for
> KB312108 (NDIS "Protection Error" on fast enough CPUs [2]), instead
> making it available on request through their support channels... (I have
> no idea if this was on ftp.microsoft.com, I suppose it's possible it was
> there despite this?)).
> 
> [1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442> (behind Anubis)
> [2] <http://web.archive.org/web/20040513001718/http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312108>
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#90601

On 8/25/26 08:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-08-25 12:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-08-25 06:41, rbowman wrote:
>>>> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
>>>> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq 
>>>> Presario
>>>> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium 
>>>> II.
>>>> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 
>>>> 48 MB
>>>> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
>>>> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I 
>>>> think it
>>>> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
>>>>
>>>> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax
>>>> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very
>>>> specific.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see 
>>>> if it
>>>> boots at all.
>>>>
>>>> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came
>>>> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 
>>>> MB,
>>>> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. 
>>>> What the
>>>> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was
>>>> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I
>>>> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble
>>> running SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
>>
>> I used the same machine for Windows 98 and GNU/Linux. Granted, it
>> started with 64 MiB and was at some point upgraded to at least 256 MiB
> 
> The machine I was talking above had much less than that. I think one 
> machine had 5 MiB, later had another with maybe 8 or 16. I don't 
> remember for sure.
> 
> Not 98, after 95 I had Me.
> 
>> (and later a bit more). That Pentium II Slot 1 machine was in use as the
>> main desktop until 2008 (by then running Debian for 1-2 years, IIRC),
>> while I at some point used KDE 3, it was happy with that amount of
>> memory (and could also run e.g. OOo; a laptop with 64 MiB was a bit of a
>> different story), and life became easier as at some point I moved away
>> from DEs.
>>
>> But this is already more than 48 MiB, and probably at a sweet point
>> where it was enough memory for the kernel, X11 and applications.
>>
>> The biggest challenge was updating (compiling, Gentoo) GCC because of
>> insn_attrtab.c [1] :-D
>>
>> Other challenges IIRC included Firefox coping with a larger amount of
>> open tabs (although it still behaved much better than nowadays), and in
>> one specific use case, Egacs, er, Emacs.
> 
> FFx caused trashing.
> 
> 
>> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
>> nice interface usually with light resource requirements. I think the
>> only slowdown I remember was browsing DVD media in the Windows Explorer,
>> and I have no idea if that was a Windows issue in itself or something
>> with that specific optical drive. It's no Windows NT, but there's
>> probably a reason it tends to be fondly remembered, even with MICROS~1
>> being MICROS~1 (they've, for example, IIRC not released the fix for
>> KB312108 (NDIS "Protection Error" on fast enough CPUs [2]), instead
>> making it available on request through their support channels... (I have
>> no idea if this was on ftp.microsoft.com, I suppose it's possible it was
>> there despite this?)).
>>
>> [1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442> (behind Anubis)
>> [2] <http://web.archive.org/web/20040513001718/http:// 
>> support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312108>

   Heh ... had one client, a doctor, who would go
   looking for garage sales with like ancient
   Packard Bell computers.

   Then I was supposed to make them work with his
   other office stuff - networking, accounting
   apps, medical database stuff.

   Remember "LANtastic" ? WAY smaller/cheaper
   than Novell networking.

   Amazing how Win95/98 WOULD work with WAY
   too little RAM. Just, well, kinda SLOW.

   DID boost the accountants box, added a
   whole two megabytes of RAM I found
   somewhere. DID quad the speed of his
   accounting app. He was very happy.

   That's "MEGAbytes", not "GIGAbytes".

   Doc was a fun guy, rarely took any money for it.
   Got a few perks too, esp during 'epidemics'.
   He once sneaked-up behind me with a flu shot,
   said I was an 'invaluable worker'. Much of the
   general pubic didn't get vax that year, for
   some reason it was reserved for 'high-risk'
   people.

   Spent a lot of time in his ceiling space
   running wires .... much younger then.
   Would not dare do anything like that now.
   Don't even like step-ladders. As Mick
   said, "What a drag it is getting old" ...

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

#90613

On 26/08/2026 08:28, c186282 wrote:
> As Mick
>    said, "What a drag it is getting old" ...

"It was more fun being 20 in the 70s than 70 in the twenties"

-- 
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing 
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

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

#90647

On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:12:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 26/08/2026 08:28, c186282 wrote:
>> As Mick
>>    said, "What a drag it is getting old" ...
> 
> "It was more fun being 20 in the 70s than 70 in the twenties"

That's for damn sure. My morning regimen now includes sawtooth palmetto, 
ginseng, and vitamin D washed down with water rather than black beauties 
and whatever other fun stuff was available washed down with Gallo hearty 
burgundy.

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

#90673

On 8/26/26 14:26, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:12:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> On 26/08/2026 08:28, c186282 wrote:
>>> As Mick
>>>     said, "What a drag it is getting old" ...
>>
>> "It was more fun being 20 in the 70s than 70 in the twenties"
> 
> That's for damn sure. 

   Heh heh ... DO know what he means !  :-)

> My morning regimen now includes sawtooth pa>lmetto,
> ginseng, and vitamin D washed down with water rather than black beauties
> and whatever other fun stuff was available washed down with Gallo hearty
> burgundy.

   Um ... try to be very sparse with the 'suppliments'
   for a number of practical and theoretical reasons.
   JUST enough to make up for my mostly keto diet.

   Might not live to be 101 that way, but I'll have
   more fun living to 96 :-)

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

#90675

On 27/08/2026 08:56, c186282 wrote:
> Um ... try to be very sparse with the 'suppliments'

SupplemEnts.

-- 
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that 
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that 
don't protect,  masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

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

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web