 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously there's also a truckload of ways AmigaOS is *different* from
>> Unix. [There are no device files,
>
> Actually, there are. CON: was, for example, a device file.
Well that's not really a "file". That's a magic filename. Unix has real,
actual *files* that you can "touch". And you create new devices by
creating one of these magical files.
[AmigaDOS had device description files, but these are text files. They
don't work the same way Unix device files do with device codes and such;
the AmigaDOS device description files are textual things telling it what
driver to load and with what settings.]
>> pathnames have a syntax more like MS-DOS,
>
> Actually, not. Each was up to the device driver to interpret. The stuff
> before the colon was the name of the device driver that the rest got
> passed to. The "Speach:" driver, for example, had no pathnames remotely
> resembling MS-DOS.
There is no "/", no unique root filesystem.
Instead, there are lots of roots like "FOO:", "BAR:", etc. This is more
like MS-DOS pathname syntax.
Now, the way it *works* is of course more like Unix...
[OTOH, it uses forward slashes rather than backslashes.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ah. OK. I was looking at AmigaOS as the software and how you interface
> to the operating system. I wasn't looking at AmigaOS as the
> command-line commands that come with AmigaOS.
I was talking specifically about scripting. ;-) [The whole "batch files
were everything" trip mentioned further up.]
The API for manipulating processes and RAM and GUI resources and such is
NOTHING LIKE any kind of Unix I'm aware of.
> I mean, really, CP/M had "more" and "type" and such.
I have no idea what CP/M is.
>> Now I would suspect that would tend to break horribly as soon as some
>> new application is added that expects everything to be in the normal
>> locations...
>
> That would be where the symlinks come into it. :-)
Doesn't that just mean you have two filesystems instead of one?
>> [Basically I have absolutely no clue how the traditional Unix file
>> layout is supposed to work. I don't know why, for example, we have
>> /bin, /root/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/bin...]
>
> Legacy, and the fact that way too many programs hard-coded file paths
> instead of the OS doing something like providing APIs for finding out
> such stuff or having some efficient central storage like a registry. Of
> course, the #! syntax *requires* hard-coded paths in every file, so it's
> kind of difficult to improve easily in that sense.
...so basically, Unix has more backwards compatibility than an Intel
Core 2 Duo?
[That's SAYING something BTW!]
> Nowadays, it looks like this, mostly:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_hierarchy_standard
>
>> They had trouble. Somebody walked past and the T-adaptor on their PC
>> fell apart, breaking the ring.
>
> They set up the ring wrong, then. :-) Each loop is supposed to go back
> to the hub that detects a broken connection and bypasses it.
Hey, it's a county council. You expect them to understand computers?
The fun part was the room full of - I am not kidding! - brown terminals
with green screens. You press a key, and there's a 2-second delay before
the character appears on screen. You type in meaningless gibberish such
as "TN XCOL 3553" and suddenly the huge line printer next to you springs
into life and starts printing people's benefits cheques or something.
Only one wizaned old lady in the place knows how to do this...
Damn, THAT was "interesting"... o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Thrice.
>
> Oh, my. ;)
Yeah, I know.
I started off with a GeForce 6600. Playing CSS with HDRL made it weep in
agony. So I replaced it with something a bit more... meaty. [Back when I
built the PC, I didn't ever play games. I only got a 3D card at all to
see what HalfLife would look like with filtered texturing...]
I also started off with a single-core CPU. A later replaced this with a
dual-core one. (Irritatingly, this required a BIOS update!)
> The PowerMac line has always been quite configurable and extendable.
> Heck, it's even 10 times easier to open than a PC. With the typical PC
> you need a screwdriver, and accessing the things inside is not the easiest
> possible task. With a typical PowerMac you press a button, open the
> computer and everything is nicely laid out there. (Well, at least this
> was so in the past.)
Mmm. Computers certainly very on how easy it is to access internal
components. My mum's first PC? When I opened the case, I couldn't even
*see* the motherboard! There was the PSU, the HD, the CD-ROM, and the
cables for those. After that, there was barely space to fit a hand in!
>>>> 2. I would have to throw away all my existing software.
>>> That doesn't make even the least bit of sense. Are you saying that if
>>> you buy a second computer, you have to throw away the first one? Why?
>>> How does that make any sense?
>
>> My bedroom has finite volume? (Not to mention power supplies. And space
>> for a keyboard, mouse and monitor...)
>
> Switches exist. They aren't even expensive.
Still doesn't solve the volume problem.
>>>> If I was going to go down this road, I'd need to know for sure that I'd
>>>> actually be able to do something *useful* with a Mac.
>>> Like what?
>
>> I'm just saying, the quantity of software I can find for a Mac has to be
>> large enough that it's worth turning the thing on at least occasionally.
>
> What kind of software? I bet you don't spend thousands of pounds in
> software, so that must be free software? What kind of free software?
> What is it that you do that requires Windows-only software?
Instruments stuff, various bits of expensive hardware that may or may
not work without Windoze.
>> I guess I could just use the Mac as a rendering machine - but then, if
>> you want a Mac with serious CPU power, it gets *frighteningly*
>> expensive. So that's not really gonna work.
>
> There we go again.
OK, so I go to the Apple website, click on the Mac Pro, and it
The machine I'm using right now, the one that was built using the best
a bloody big difference! ;-)
>> think that has Mac drivers.
>
> Probably not, because MacOS X probably supports it out of the box.
Maybe. If I'm not using the Mac for serious sound work anyway, I guess
it doesn't matter either way.
>>>> Eventually I got tired of Linux being catestrophically
>>>> broken every time any item of hardware changed, so I just removed it
>>>> completely.
>>> Right, no other linux user ever changes their hardware and thus
>>> avoids all problems, which is why linux is never fixed. You are the
>>> only person in the world to do that.
>
>> Linux is an OS "designed by experts, for experts". I am not an expert.
>
> How does that counter my sarcasm? I think it's still valid.
My *point* is that "other Linux users" are Linux experts. I'm not.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> OK, so I go to the Apple website, click on the Mac Pro, and it
> The machine I'm using right now, the one that was built using the best
> a bloody big difference! ;-)
Yeah, and the specs are certainly the same.
> My *point* is that "other Linux users" are Linux experts. I'm not.
Some people are born with the necessary experience to use linux?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:40:16 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I have no idea what CP/M is.
The predecessor to MS-DOS/PC-DOS. Commodore used it on the Commodore
128, in fact, around the same time the Amiga was available IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:07:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I'm sure if you knew enough about Linux, you could do this kind of
>>> thing pretty easily. I don't have the knowledge required.
>>
>> That's a far cry from "doesn't appear to be documented".
>
> ...and why do you think I don't have the knowledge required?
>
> Maybe because I couldn't find it documented anywhere? ;-)
There's a significant difference between "I couldn't find the
documentation" and "it doesn't appear to be documented". ;-)
> Yeah, AD works completely differently to the SAM - even down to using a
> different hash function IIRC. Good luck with that!
I think it still uses MD4 for NTLM authentication (seems to me that's
what it was), but you can disable that and it uses something a bit more
advanced.
> [Time for an
> authoritative restore - oh, wait, it doesn't boot! OK, time for a
> parallel install to set up the backup software to restore the original
> data over the top of the boot partition. Yes, I have personally done
> this. No, it isn't amusing.]
Heh, yep, BTDTGTTS. And no, it isn't amusing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:58:24 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> When you wanted to start
>>> windows you wrote "win".
>>
>> Except for one person I know who renamed it to "lose.com". You can
>> guess his opinion.
>
> OMG, lose.com is so full of win!
>
>
>
>
>
> [Did you see what I did there?]
LOL, good one. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:02:05 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> OTOH, 24 Mbit/s ADSL is completely normal
>>
>> In Europe, yes. In the US, no. I got an upgrade recently (for free)
>> to 3 Mbps from 1.5. It's amazing that that still qualifies as
>> "broadband" here in the US.
>
> Really? I'd heard it was the other way round...
>
> My company grudingly signed a 3-year lease with BT for our Internet. My
> boss really wants to shop around for better deals.
>
> (Er, HELLO? Are you not getting this? BT OWN ALL THE WIRES IN THE
> GROUND. THERE ARE NO OTHER TELECOMS PROVIDERS IN THE UK [except in
> London]. No matter who you pay the bills to, the wires under the ground
> are still being provided by the same people... WTF?)
Quantity discount. My DSL line is provided by Covad, even though the
telco to the house is Qwest. My DSL service is actually cheaper than
Qwest's DSL service.
Makes perfect sense to shop around.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:03:03 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> CompuServe also charged a flat rate ($19.95/month IIRC) plus a
>> surcharge for per-minute access to some services. Then there were
>> add-on services that you could purchase as well.
>>
>> It was almost as convoluted as picking a cell phone plan these days.
>
> Yeah - make it complex so the user can't tell how badly they're being
> screwed! ;-)
Exactly.
> BTW... apparently some cell phones these days can actually access the
> Internet. (So I'm told anyway.)
Like this one: http://na.blackberry.com/eng/devices/device-detail.jsp?
navId=H0,C63,P65
(That's what I've got)
I believe we pay about $120/month for service (including unlimited data
service, international calling, and roaming. I don't know how much we
paid for the e-mail gateway software.
Once upon a time (before upgrading the OS), I actually was able to ssh
from my phone to my home desktop. With the OS upgrade, something broke
and it doesn't work now. You think the web on a small screen is fun, you
should try ssh sometime. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> BTW... apparently some cell phones these days can actually access the
> Internet. (So I'm told anyway.)
>
The one I've bought 11/2003 (=almost five years ago) can.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
