|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 290 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 248 of 290:
| 
Mar 13 01:54 UTC 2006 |
I think there's also an X11 wm that's meant to look like rio.
You're right, Dan. X11 DOES suck. And so does UNIX, whatever flavour. The
trouble is, they're SO much better than That Other System in SO many ways,
and Plan 9 is SO little known, that its suckiness is (almost) irrelevant. Now,
if I'm wrong about the window manager thing, then fine. But don't assume I'm
just some ignorant Linux fanboy. I also use (and happen to prefer) FreeBSD
on one machine. I can also see lots of areas where linux went wrong, like
kernel module support. But I suspect that unless you're a kernel programmer
(which I'm not), and/or you have a few machines kicking around that you can
power constantly just to have a distributed OS (which I don't), then Plan 9
really wouldn't look much more attractive to you than Linux/BSD. (As an aside,
imho Plan 9 still doesn't do device management correctly: /dev/dev/ and
/dev/devctrl is certainly an improvement over /dev/dev/ and ioctrl, but the
OS should include facilities for decoding whether what's written to /dev/dev
is a command or data, instead.
As for the bad old days; point taken. But I know that lots of people prefer,
and always have preferred, developing for UNIX rather than Windows, and
developing for Mac OS Classic (especially early versions) sounds like a
nightmare. Let's face it, aside from some shining lights (now sadly mostly
dimmed), programming graphical applications on just about ANY platform in the
eighties must have been the GUI equivalent of batch-mode-only OSES. Did I
mention it sounds painful?
|
cross
|
|
response 249 of 290:
|
Mar 13 03:11 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 250 of 290:
|
Mar 13 03:46 UTC 2006 |
Is Plan 9 free software?
|
twenex
|
|
response 251 of 290:
|
Mar 13 12:41 UTC 2006 |
Re: 249. OK, maybe that ouldn't work!
Re: #250. What's your definition of "Free software"?
|
cross
|
|
response 252 of 290:
|
Mar 13 14:46 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 253 of 290:
|
Mar 13 14:49 UTC 2006 |
Re: #252. "Approved by the OSI" does not mean that it is approved by Richard
Stallman and the GNU/Free Software Foundation people. The OSI-approved
software stack *includes* (all?) software approved by the FSF, but the reverse
is not necessarily the case.
|
cross
|
|
response 254 of 290:
|
Mar 13 14:58 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 255 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:02 UTC 2006 |
And I quote:
"...There was a shakey start with Stallman and the OSI people..."
|
fudge
|
|
response 256 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:23 UTC 2006 |
r#253: thankfully RMS hasn't got the right of veto for software worldwide.
|
ball
|
|
response 257 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:25 UTC 2006 |
I think I should network my next home with Ethernet
(probably a combination of 10baseT, 100baseTX and perhaps
1000baseT over cat-5e and RS-485 (over Cat-3?)
|
ball
|
|
response 258 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:27 UTC 2006 |
)
|
cross
|
|
response 259 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:29 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 260 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:51 UTC 2006 |
Re: #259. I see. For one, your original statement implied, or at least I took
it as implying, that RMS and the OSI were "intimately connected" in the way
that RMS and the FSF are. I didn't realize that the OSF had merely "taken his
side".
For another, RMS/FSF advocate free software, not merely "Open Source", which
the OSF is "responsible" and which looser definition merely *includes*, but
is not restricted to, free software.
Re: #256. Why should Stallman, or anyone, give anyone the right to use,
modify, and distribute software they've distributed *with source*, without
requiring them to either (a) give credit to the original authors, (b)
distribute either the original, or their modified, source under the same
conditions as the source they got in the first place, (c) pay up, or (d) some
combination of the preceding?
Might as well work one's rear end off to buy a High Definition, Widescreen,
Digital Television, then give it to the nearest beggar, complete with
generator.
The only people who really want to have the right not to distribute source are
those who are interested in getting something for nothing and charging for the
privilege.
|
twenex
|
|
response 261 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:53 UTC 2006 |
Charging others for the privilege, that is.
|
cross
|
|
response 262 of 290:
|
Mar 13 16:38 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 263 of 290:
|
Mar 13 18:23 UTC 2006 |
The Linksys wireless card works in Windows (I think, we have no signal to test
it on but the driver CD installed drivers and found the card). A neighbor
lent us a Netgear card to try with linux, but it needs the same linux module.
I got the source code at Driverguide (Realtek's links are broken) but can't
compile it - I get lots of warnings and then an error. I downloaded the Win98
driver for it (about 100K) and unzipped to get a .sys and a .inf file.
Obviously this is not the self-installing type of driver. How do we feed it
properly to Win98? I want to test it before returning it to the neighbor so
he will know if it works. (He sleeps until late afternoon).
We also found a Yahoo camera setup exe that installed itself somewhere or
other but we have no idea where. Jim fixed the camera somehow. .1 MP.
Serial cable, not working with our DOS Photopc download software.
|
ball
|
|
response 264 of 290:
|
Mar 13 18:52 UTC 2006 |
Is that a Webcam? What make & model? I recently got one
that works with NetBSD (probably Linux too). Mine is a
Logitech Quickcan Chat. Once I have DSL, I will try video-
conferencing with it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 265 of 290:
|
Mar 14 01:06 UTC 2006 |
Tiger Direct Yahoo Digital Camera. Blue and yellow, 320x200, stores 20 low
res photos. We installed the software (ran the .exe file) and I have no idea
where it was put. An online review said to reboot to use it so we plugged
in the camera and 10 min later got back into Win98 and still had no idea how
to download a photo. 1.1MB .exe file, no instructions for use.
We took the laptop computer with wireless card to the library. A librarian
helped us fill in the same long number on two lines and we still have no
connection. Jim plugged in his USB memory stick to a computer there and it
does not work. The library said they will fix that eventually. There is a
floppy drive but we can only get small files onto it and the whole point was
to download things like kernel source.
Win98 would not work with the USB stick so we used a 1-floppy linux to
transfer 2.8MB of file for the other wireless card from my linux download.
Win98 says it cannot find some files it needs. We seem to have Win98FE.
The first card is said to have worked on a friend's computer, I wonder how.
I am going to get out some paper books and go home now.
|
ball
|
|
response 266 of 290:
|
Mar 14 01:41 UTC 2006 |
In case this helps, I found a few random pages on the Web
that seem to suggest that uses the STM STV680 chipset. I
don't know whether Linux drivers are available, but if the
camera supports a removeable flash card (like my cheap
digital still camera, which uses Smartmedia cards), you may
be able to mount those cards in a suitable reader and read
that way the pictures you take.
|
keesan
|
|
response 267 of 290:
|
Mar 14 02:51 UTC 2006 |
The card has about 100Kbytes of built-in RAM, not a flash card. The only
mention I found for it for linux was that nobody had any idea whether it
worked and to let them know if it did. My expensive Olympus digital camera
uses Smartmedia cards (for which I have a reader that works in linux but not
DOS) and it also comes with a serial download cable that works in linux or
DOS (40K, fits onto a book disk). Can you find linux software for the camer?
It apparently takes nighttime photos via infrared flash and Jim wants to try
it for fun. A grexer gave it to us. It is reviewed under 'toys, other'.
|
ball
|
|
response 268 of 290:
|
Mar 14 05:06 UTC 2006 |
My wife recently bought an Olympus digital camera. I suspect
(althought I have yet to confirm this) that it supports the
umass standard and should work directly with systems like
NetBSD and Linux.
I'll look for open-source drivers for your Yahoo Digital
Camera.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 269 of 290:
|
Mar 14 07:20 UTC 2006 |
The Olympus camera I bought 4 years ago worked as a USB mass
storage device, as does the one I bought earlier this year.
I'm sure yours will as well.
|
ball
|
|
response 270 of 290:
|
Mar 14 08:58 UTC 2006 |
Nice job Olympus! ;-)
|
keesan
|
|
response 271 of 290:
|
Mar 14 14:52 UTC 2006 |
Mine is never going to work as a USB mass storage device because it only comes
with a serial cable. The card reader is mass-storage.
I found STV0680.c linux software but it seems to be for USB. I also found
two other Win98 drivers to try next with the Yahoo camera. The camera is said
to also need Video4Linux (maybe to act as a webcam? Maybe to take single
photos while acting as a webcam?). Someone using it with Windows said just
to plug it in and reboot to download photos, which is all we are after.
Lots of other cheap cameras (spycam, pen camera) use this chip.
|
ball
|
|
response 272 of 290:
|
Mar 14 15:12 UTC 2006 |
I don't know if this helps...
http://gkall.hobby.nl/stv680-aiptek.html
...or if it supports the RS-232 cable option.
Have you tried sane or gphoto?
|