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

#90855

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 10:00:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> A PHP page still has to be served.
> If you make dynamic changes it has to be reloaded, wasting time and
> bandwidth

I suppose it could be done if you're a masochist. Take a very basic 
operation, zooming in. You'd have to inform the PHP back end somehow. It 
would then have to request a new set of tiles from the tile server based 
on the Z level, render a complete new page, and serve it back to the 
browser. That would be smoother than a baby's ass. 

> JavaScript enables far less network activity to be used for far more
> functionality.
> Like any tool its a time saver or a danger to humanity, depending on how
> its used

With JavaScript the browser is making the calls for new tiles and 
rendering them. You can watch the calls in the developer's console of 
Chrome, Brave, or whatever. The browser also caches tiles to minimize web 
traffic if you're panning for example.

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

#90852

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 02:00:31 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    PREF the PHP approach - makes the SERVER do most of the work

I don't know PHP but what I find are sites like

https://www.sourcecodester.com/php/17354/interactive-map-markers-using-
php-and-mysql-source-code.html

https://nomadphp.com/video/232/building-interactive-maps-with-php-and-
javascript

https://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/284-Create-a-Google-Maps-alternative-
with-PHP-and-MySQL-using-the-Leaflet-library.html

https://developers.google.com/gdata/articles/php_maps_spreadsheets

Once you say 'leaflet' you're into JavaScript.

https://leafletjs.com/

Sure, you can use PHP to serve up a HTML page, extract data from a SQL 
database, and so forth. I prefer Node.js for the back end since I'd rather 
work with JS on both ends. 

If you like Python you can use Folium to create a web page and serve it 
however you want.  The HTML document will start with

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
    <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/leaflet@1.9.3/dist/
leaflet.js"></script>

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

#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]

#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]

#90696

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:56:11 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    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.

I probably could drop some of the ones I take but they're not any of the 
expensive ones and *might* have some benefit. About the only one I would 
suggest is tumeric with piperine (black pepper). I've found it works 
better than glucosamine.

I tried fairly strict keto for a while. I don't obsess over it any more 
but I'm basically a carnivore. I can deal with Kennedy's pyramid although 
he's a little more into fruit. 

Technically I get my daily fruit. Breakfast usually is a couple of cloves 
of garlic, one jalapeno, one tomato, one small onion or half of a larger 
one, two eggs, and a slice of cheese sauteed in olive oil. 

I'll count the pepper and tomato as my vegetable too. To paraphrase the 
signs I've seen on some local businesses 'Kale has no home here.' I've 
tried. Honestly I've tried. It has to be the only thing in the world you 
can fry up with plenty of bacon and garlic and it still isn't fit to eat.

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

#90697

On 2026-08-27, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> I'll count the pepper and tomato as my vegetable too. To paraphrase the 
> signs I've seen on some local businesses 'Kale has no home here.' I've 
> tried. Honestly I've tried. It has to be the only thing in the world you 
> can fry up with plenty of bacon and garlic and it still isn't fit to eat.

I saw one kale recipe I liked.  It suggested stir-frying the kale in a pan
with enough oil that you can easily slide it straight into the compost bin.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#90727

On 8/27/26 17:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-08-27, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'll count the pepper and tomato as my vegetable too. To paraphrase the
>> signs I've seen on some local businesses 'Kale has no home here.' I've
>> tried. Honestly I've tried. It has to be the only thing in the world you
>> can fry up with plenty of bacon and garlic and it still isn't fit to eat.
> 
> I saw one kale recipe I liked.  It suggested stir-frying the kale in a pan
> with enough oil that you can easily slide it straight into the compost bin.

   Heh heh heh !!!

   Yea, it's just HORRIBLE !

   I think BECAUSE it's so horrible is why a certain
   clique will eat it. A weird quirk of human psych,
   kind of like the Python monks who kept hitting
   themselves in the head with a prayer board :-)

   Now we need a veggie that will put pus-running
   cuts and lesions in your mouth - a certain crowd
   will just LOVE it, pay top dollar !

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

#90733

On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:26:18 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Now we need a veggie that will put pus-running cuts and lesions in
>    your mouth - a certain crowd will just LOVE it, pay top dollar !

I wonder how tasty Canadian thistle is? Apparently they've mastered 
nettles.

https://foragerchef.com/classic-nettle-soup/

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

#90742

On 28/08/2026 07:59, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:26:18 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Now we need a veggie that will put pus-running cuts and lesions in
>>     your mouth - a certain crowd will just LOVE it, pay top dollar !
> 
> I wonder how tasty Canadian thistle is? Apparently they've mastered
> nettles.
> 
> https://foragerchef.com/classic-nettle-soup/
> 
Nettles are actually not too bad,. No worse then spinach,

I like a hot prawn spinach and tomato curry once a year.

-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

#90784

On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:05:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 28/08/2026 07:59, rbowman wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:26:18 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>     Now we need a veggie that will put pus-running cuts and lesions in
>>>     your mouth - a certain crowd will just LOVE it, pay top dollar !
>> 
>> I wonder how tasty Canadian thistle is? Apparently they've mastered
>> nettles.
>> 
>> https://foragerchef.com/classic-nettle-soup/
>> 
> Nettles are actually not too bad,. No worse then spinach,

I might try them but I don't remember encountering them locally. A semi-
arid environment isn't their favorite place. On the plus side poison ivy 
doesn't do well either. 

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

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

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

csiph-web