Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #73031 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-02 15:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-09-08 01:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> - 2025-09-02 15:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 19:35 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 04:42 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 09:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 04:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:16 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:26 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:51 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:20 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 20:07 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:54 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:28 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 04:56 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 08:57 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 08:23 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 04:36 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 11:59 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:49 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:40 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-07 08:35 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:02 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-07 15:57 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:30 +0000
PCI cards and cables "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-08 22:55 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:23 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:35 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-06 07:53 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 10:14 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 09:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 13:02 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 19:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 20:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 01:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-09 14:48 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:44 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 20:52 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 08:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:55 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 01:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-10 03:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:55 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 11:15 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-10 10:57 +0000
UFO [Was: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 13:25 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-10 23:47 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 21:07 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 20:50 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:59 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:35 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 01:04 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 21:09 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:41 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:46 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:39 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 19:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 18:35 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 22:04 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-11 02:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 22:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-11 04:09 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 00:42 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:02 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 22:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 04:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:32 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 07:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 08:29 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 21:11 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 22:02 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 02:42 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 23:41 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:28 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 06:46 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 07:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 00:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 21:34 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:04 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 23:46 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-11 13:07 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:04 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-11 10:25 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 04:00 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 00:38 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 22:26 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 02:35 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 08:32 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 06:22 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 15:26 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 21:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-13 13:06 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 17:24 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 22:01 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 06:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 21:01 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 00:20 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:08 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:34 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2025-09-07 15:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 16:48 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:39 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:14 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:50 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:39 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 14:12 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 00:13 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:41 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-07 11:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 05:39 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 11:01 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:30 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 10:54 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 20:11 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-02 18:58 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:38 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 09:06 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 03:20 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 10:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 05:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:52 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:59 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 13:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 13:36 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 04:51 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 06:33 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:03 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 13:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 13:37 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:15 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 15:16 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:21 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 09:44 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:30 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 17:24 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 21:23 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:14 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:53 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:19 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-06 19:57 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 05:41 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:39 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:43 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:13 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 07:29 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:40 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 19:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 09:44 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 05:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 04:22 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-09 05:26 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 03:32 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-09 05:35 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:15 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 07:06 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:37 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 21:46 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-12 17:30 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-12 10:05 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:40 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 20:59 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 00:18 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-13 05:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 18:12 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-13 07:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:32 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 05:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:13 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-14 08:48 +1000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 21:27 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 23:34 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 10:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:54 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:50 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 20:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 01:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 08:11 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:14 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:12 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:22 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 08:32 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 22:56 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 00:14 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:56 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-10 19:10 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 12:16 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 15:55 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 10:57 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:47 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-08 23:00 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:11 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-13 12:57 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:26 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:35 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:38 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:43 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 14:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 09:57 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 18:16 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 09:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 08:02 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-09-04 15:40 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 08:59 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:30 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 04:05 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 14:47 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 19:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 08:15 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-15 17:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:22 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:47 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-04 11:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-09-05 14:05 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-05 15:03 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:46 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:01 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 20:51 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:08 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 04:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 09:17 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:36 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 06:27 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:28 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:05 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-04 06:55 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-04 07:08 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:18 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 23:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 06:47 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:05 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Øyvind Røtvold <orotvold@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 09:01 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 01:50 +0000
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 04:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <86WcnWp5nZEj1SD1nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73606 |
On 9/6/25 11:18 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-09-07, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >> >>> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>> >>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >>>> >>>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >>> >>> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. >> >> Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending >> data that could be useful. > > "Dammit, who turned on automatic updates for the package that's > interpreting Voyager data? It dropped support for the old format!" Shhhhh ! They don't WANT you to know what's Out There :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10c3j50.5rk6.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> |
| In reply to | #73606 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote at 03:18 this Sunday (GMT): > On 2025-09-07, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >> >>> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>> >>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >>>> >>>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >>> >>> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. >> >> Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending >> data that could be useful. > > "Dammit, who turned on automatic updates for the package that's > interpreting Voyager data? It dropped support for the old format!" I'd imagine that those computers would predate automatic updates entirely. -- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250910121617.00007bd5@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #73847 |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:10:03 -0000 (UTC) candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: > > "Dammit, who turned on automatic updates for the package that's > > interpreting Voyager data? It dropped support for the old format!" > > I'd imagine that those computers would predate automatic updates > entirely. I do believe that was the joke ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 15:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <F8ednZTaOs1fSlz1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73847 |
On 9/10/25 3:10 PM, candycanearter07 wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote at 03:18 this Sunday (GMT): >> On 2025-09-07, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >>> >>>> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >>>>> >>>>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >>>> >>>> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. >>> >>> Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending >>> data that could be useful. >> >> "Dammit, who turned on automatic updates for the package that's >> interpreting Voyager data? It dropped support for the old format!" > > > I'd imagine that those computers would predate automatic updates entirely. Aww ... you ruined the joke ! :-) As for "formats" - NASA was nefarious for buying one-off custom systems that won't interface with anything else, media or otherwise. MAY be better now, but during the old space program things and needs were changing so quickly that 'compatibility' was an unknown term. "We need a Freeblefrinkle 270x by next week and a bunch of their 9.47 inch disks !". The Voyager data - still coming ... hopefully it's hard-printed somewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 10:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109jku9$3i2d7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73602 |
On 07/09/2025 03:48, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>>>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>>>>>>> data collected by it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is asking too much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? >>>>> >>>>> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free time to >>>>> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >>>>> user base still has. >>>>> >>>>> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >>>>> start learning and volunteering yourself now. >>>> >>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >>> >>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >> >> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. > > Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending > data that could be useful. > > Reading vintage data is not hard. So long as you know the format and have suitable hardware. There is nothing much to reading e.g. an 8" floppy beyond the drive itself. And if its important enough that can be manufactured too. -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 06:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vGadnRBsm_1H_yD1nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73644 |
On 9/7/25 5:57 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 07/09/2025 03:48, Steve Hayes wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does >>>>>>>>>>> SUN solaris, >>>>>>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>>>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on >>>>>>>>>> vintage >>>>>>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and >>>>>>>>> read the >>>>>>>>> data collected by it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is asking too much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free >>>>>> time to >>>>>> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >>>>>> user base still has. >>>>>> >>>>>> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >>>>>> start learning and volunteering yourself now. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >>>> >>>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >>> >>> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. >> >> Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending >> data that could be useful. >> >> > > Reading vintage data is not hard. So long as you know the format and > have suitable hardware. > > There is nothing much to reading e.g. an 8" floppy beyond the drive > itself. And if its important enough that can be manufactured too. Ummm ... where ... by whom ? Sorry, NO MORE MARKET. No more $$$ Long LONG gone. Yea, it'd be kind of cool to have a big old 8" Shugart attached to my BeeLink ... but it's NOT HAPPENING. Wanna convert you 8-inchers ? Then it's some obscure and VERY EXPENSIVE hole-in-the-wall spot you'll probably never find OR can afford. This is The Story for 'digital'. It'll get WORSE soon. I've a very old box, with very noisy fan, that still has plugs for ATA drives, 5-1/4/3" drives. It's on its last legs. MIGHT do "Zip" but not sure I have drivers. A few more years and even CD/DVD won't have drivers anymore. Then thumb drives. Then ....... I'm figuring NO MORE LOCAL HARDWARE SUPPORT - it's cloud/AI or nothing. "They" are steering you to where they Make Profit and can steal all your stuff for MORE profit. Isn't it clear ? Was looking at 'cloud' storage sites a little while ago ... one demanded that the data NOT be encrypted, even while promising their OWN 'encryption'. Guess what's up ??? Soon, all .......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 13:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109jv7m$3kgph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73655 |
On 07/09/2025 11:47, c186282 wrote: > On 9/7/25 5:57 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 07/09/2025 03:48, Steve Hayes wrote: >>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does >>>>>>>>>>>> SUN solaris, >>>>>>>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. >>>>>>>>>>> It is >>>>>>>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on >>>>>>>>>>> vintage >>>>>>>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and >>>>>>>>>> read the >>>>>>>>>> data collected by it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is asking too much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free >>>>>>> time to >>>>>>> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >>>>>>> user base still has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >>>>>>> start learning and volunteering yourself now. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too >>>>>> much. >>>>> >>>>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >>>> >>>> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. >>> >>> Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending >>> data that could be useful. >>> >>> >> >> Reading vintage data is not hard. So long as you know the format and >> have suitable hardware. >> >> There is nothing much to reading e.g. an 8" floppy beyond the drive >> itself. And if its important enough that can be manufactured too. > > Ummm ... where ... by whom ? > Anywhere with a 3D printer and a machine shop > Sorry, NO MORE MARKET. No more $$$ > If someone wants it enough, it can be made. Anyone else who had data on 8" now has it on an SSD. -- Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8ps3plxjtc.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73670 |
On 2025-09-07 14:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 07/09/2025 11:47, c186282 wrote: >> On 9/7/25 5:57 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 07/09/2025 03:48, Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does >>>>>>>>>>>>> SUN solaris, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. >>>>>>>>>>>> It is >>>>>>>>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on >>>>>>>>>>>> vintage >>>>>>>>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and >>>>>>>>>>> read the >>>>>>>>>>> data collected by it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is asking too much. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free >>>>>>>> time to >>>>>>>> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >>>>>>>> user base still has. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >>>>>>>> start learning and volunteering yourself now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too >>>>>>> much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >>>>> >>>>> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. >>>> >>>> Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending >>>> data that could be useful. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Reading vintage data is not hard. So long as you know the format and >>> have suitable hardware. >>> >>> There is nothing much to reading e.g. an 8" floppy beyond the drive >>> itself. And if its important enough that can be manufactured too. >> >> Ummm ... where ... by whom ? >> > Anywhere with a 3D printer and a machine shop > >> Sorry, NO MORE MARKET. No more $$$ >> > If someone wants it enough, it can be made. > > Anyone else who had data on 8" now has it on an SSD. Huh, no. I have data in my floppies still not anywhere else. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 11:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109ougf$t9ek$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73727 |
On 08/09/2025 22:00, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-07 14:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Anyone else who had data on 8" now has it on an SSD. > > Huh, no. I have data in my floppies still not anywhere else. > I meant anyone else with any sense. :-) -- Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are poor. Peter Thompson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kYMvQ.733614$jMMa.406963@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #73655 |
On 2025-09-07, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> Was looking at 'cloud' storage sites a little while
> ago ... one demanded that the data NOT be encrypted,
> even while promising their OWN 'encryption'. Guess
> what's up ??? Soon, all .......
Seen on a T-shirt:
There is no Cloud. It's just someone else's computer.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 04:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zZWcnYQXMOa2fyL1nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73739 |
On 9/8/25 11:14 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-09-07, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> Was looking at 'cloud' storage sites a little while >> ago ... one demanded that the data NOT be encrypted, >> even while promising their OWN 'encryption'. Guess >> what's up ??? Soon, all ....... > > Seen on a T-shirt: > > There is no Cloud. It's just someone else's computer. Which you WILL pay for, over and over and over ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mibd22F5krvU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73739 |
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 03:14:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-09-07, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> Was looking at 'cloud' storage sites a little while ago ... one >> demanded that the data NOT be encrypted, >> even while promising their OWN 'encryption'. Guess what's up ??? >> Soon, all ....... > > Seen on a T-shirt: > > There is no Cloud. It's just someone else's computer. That was evident in the term 'private cloud'. https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/private-cloud/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 12:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68c56a21$0$28074$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #73739 |
Le 09-09-2025, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> a écrit : > On 2025-09-07, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> Was looking at 'cloud' storage sites a little while >> ago ... one demanded that the data NOT be encrypted, >> even while promising their OWN 'encryption'. Guess >> what's up ??? Soon, all ....... > > Seen on a T-shirt: > > There is no Cloud. It's just someone else's computer. Yes, but no. It has been written by someone who doesn't understand what the cloud is. By the way, a few years ago, when an OVH data Center burned in Strasbourg, it proved that OVH weren't doing cloud neither. They pretended to, but they were only jumping on the hype train. I'm just stating a fact to avoid you telling me first that as a French I'm far away of what a real cloud is. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 13:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8n60plx4nm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73602 |
On 2025-09-07 04:48, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>>>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>>>>>>> data collected by it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is asking too much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? >>>>> >>>>> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free time to >>>>> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >>>>> user base still has. >>>>> >>>>> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >>>>> start learning and volunteering yourself now. >>>> >>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >>> >>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >> >> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. > > Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending > data that could be useful. I don't remember what it was exactly. Someone demanded from authorities an old conference in video from somebody, under freedom of information act or similar. Found silence, had to insist via court order, till he finally got told that the speech was in video and they had the tapes, but there was no machine that would play those tape so that they could digitize and send the file to him. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109icvd$3a1tr$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73507 |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 10:48:31 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber > <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > >> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>> >>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read >>> the data collected by it. >> >> That is asking too much. > > Why? Lessig’s Law: The ones who writes the code, make the rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 04:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6lspbkte8u5cd9e8ot6kkov67l81hu2nmb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73585 |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 22:35:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DÿOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 10:48:31 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >> >>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read >>>> the data collected by it. >>> >>> That is asking too much. >> >> Why? > >Lessig’s Law: The ones who writes the code, make the rules. Which is why "user friendly" is meaningless hype. You *will* use your computer for what the vendors want you to use it for, not for anything you many find useful. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 03:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109iuna$3do6k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73603 |
On Sun, 07 Sep 2025 04:51:21 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 22:35:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DÿOliveiro > <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> Lessig’s Law: The ones who writes the code, make the rules. > > Which is why "user friendly" is meaningless hype. No it’s not. > You *will* use your computer for what the vendors want you to use it > for, not for anything you many find useful. Don’t like the Free Software code that is already being provided to you? Write your own. Or hire someone to do what you want. How do you think all that existing code came into being? It doesn’t write itself, you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 04:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <86WcnWt5nZG-1SD1nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73603 |
On 9/6/25 10:51 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 22:35:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DÿOliveiro > <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 10:48:31 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>> >>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read >>>>> the data collected by it. >>>> >>>> That is asking too much. >>> >>> Why? >> >> Lessig’s Law: The ones who writes the code, make the rules. > > Which is why "user friendly" is meaningless hype. You *will* use your > computer for what the vendors want you to use it for, not for anything > you many find useful. Well ... chose wisely .....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 03:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_vOcnfKLUZNIqiD1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73585 |
On 9/6/25 6:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 10:48:31 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >> >>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read >>>> the data collected by it. >>> >>> That is asking too much. >> >> Why? > > Lessig’s Law: The ones who writes the code, make the rules. Kind of true. However there's no ONE person (yet) writing the code. Many with different perspectives/needs. Tomorrow, it'll be naught but the "AI" ... then we're in deep shit. All bow to the AI ... perfect Truths, THE way of looking at things ............
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 12:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109964l$2o09q$9@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #73185 |
On 03.09.2025 10:52 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/09/2025 10:15, c186282 wrote: > > On 9/3/25 4:51 AM, Marco Moock wrote: > >> On 03.09.2025 03:20 c186282 c186282 wrote: > >> > >>> DO encourage at least ONE distro to hang on to > >>> a 32-bit version for a few more years though. > >>> After that ....... the past is the past. > >> > >> Slackware plans to do so. > >> Although, if upstream software will stop supporting it (not only > >> the kernel, but compilers and linkers), it will definitely come to > >> an end. > > > > 32 has gone the way of 8-bit .... > > > > Nothing really to DO about it ... tech keeps > > marching on. > > > > What, should all the distros keep a PDP-11 > > version ??? Come ON now !!! > > > > Learned on a PDP-11, good unit ... but its > > time is LONG LONG gone. > > I think custom Linuxes of a 32 bit flavour will be around as long as > there are being platforms made that will run them and need them. Although, no security updates and bugfixed upstream then. Rather unlikely that people will continue to buy such devices. > It is probably true to say that ultimately if the PIOS (32bit) were > frozen at the latest level it would still be a usable option for > embedded applications almost forever. Without bugfixes and support, I don't like such solutions. Small x64 hardware is cheap. > I mean you can still run FreeDos on a *86 if you want. Or CP/M on a > z80 Useless for current applications. > That doesn't detract from the argument that a 386SX running today's > linux wouldn't be completely unusable as a day to day desktop. I have serious doubt that you are able to install any current distribution on such a system. You need a kernel with just a small portion of the features to make it possible to use only some MBs of RAM. FYI: ~3 years ago I tried to use the Debian installer on 384 MB - it crashed. Now images that for machines with under 16MB. > You would be better off running windows XP on it. Will already run horrible on a Pentium 2 - with resources multiple times of 386 machines. > And thats the point. Retro computing uses retro software as well as > retro hardware. And is a hobby. Such old stuff sometimes still exists in companies - but if it fails or needs to be changes, it is a PITA. > And the cost of maintaining REALLY old kit starts to > ruse and its utility starts to fall after a certain age. Many parts of the Linux kernel are maintained by companies. I have doubt that they will care about that old stuff. Linux already dropped support for really old graphics cards, ISDN and other stuff that is not well-used nowadays and created issues. Nobody liked to seriously take over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web