Very Computer

Heck, even Mac OS 8 (where I come from) has that.
Click: click; Ctrl+click: open popup menu
And yes, there are four-button trackballs for the sucker.

Quote:> >> If you want to get REALLY secure, then nuke whatever OS
> >> is on the machines now

> >Presumably Micro$oft Sindows.

> I wouldn't be so sure, a lot of schools go with Macs for
> some reason. Most likely due to the fact that a trained
> chimp can operate a mac (and many apparently do if the
> comp.sys.mac.* groups are any indication).

I thought it was: Apple II became popular in school because
it had a boot sector (which Commodore lacked; try teaching
kids to RUN "*",8,1 or whatever it was); Apple IIGS had a
Mac-like shell; Mac LC had Apple IIe emulation to run
legacy software; when it came out, Windows was even more
of a POS than it is today... That all changed with the virus
commonly known as Micro$oft Windows 95.

Quote:> >> If you need help convincing the school to allow this,
> >> explain to them the cost of one linux CD vs. a
> >> Win98/MacOS site license.

> >Or just buy Red Hat Linux for Dummies and say
> >"I already put the site license on my credit card."

I have that book too.

Quote:> I haven't checked out the RH4D book, but the one I did
> first get (Linux Unleashed) and several others I checked
> out seemed, quite frankly, to be crap. IMHO, the best
> documentation for linux exists on the net,

I got my copy because I couldn't even get on PPP except
in Windows.

Quote:> I've had very few problems that I wasn't able to solve by
> doing a Power Search through the deja archives, and no
> problems that I wasn't able to solve by posting a question
> to a relevant NG

Of course, this requires PPP access.

Quote:> >> Linux is a truly multi-user, permissions-based system,

> >Problem: I've never figured out how to get multiple
> >users on one computer. A computer has only one keyboard,

> I'm not sure if you're joking or not...

I think he was half joking but half serious. It all depends on
whether you say NT is multiuser: it has more than one user
account, but only one user can be interacting with the
computer at once.

Quote:> but I'm going to assume that you are and that you know
> about virtual terminals, telnet servers, user permissions, etc.

Pinocchio told me about Linux and how its permissions work.
But only one user can be *using* a computer at any given time,
except through ssh.

Quote:> >and for the price of an X terminal, a fellow can get a
> >whole new computer.

> Price of an X-term? Huh?

I think he meant a dumb graphics terminal that uses the X protocol.
Heck, even text terminals cost $600 new.

Quote:> >> For the most part, it's only the actual setup that's hard,

> >RHL4D walks you through it.

> The reason I don't think books are a good way to learn
> Linux is because of the OSes complexity and all the possible
> variables (a lot of them having to do with the sheer number
> of hardware components available in the x86 world).

Just plug and pray. At least Linux supports all devices that
vendors want to support (and a few more). Lucent is porting
its LT Win Modem to Linux.

Quote:> It would be nearly impossible for any book ... to cover every
> conceivable issue a person could face

That's not what "For Dummies" books try to handle.

Quote:> if you encounter a problem, someone else has encountered
> and fixed it too, and either documented it on the web

Which requires working PPP.

Quote:> or asked for help about it on Usenet.

Which requires working PPP.

Quote:> >I agree about Netscape and WP, but KDE IMHO stands for
> >"Krappy Desktop Environment." All it's been doing lately is
> >stealing features from GNOME+Enlightenment.

> To avert the risk of getting into a K* v. G*/E* argument,

Nice move. Those can get hairy.

Quote:> Windows: Because it's closed, security exploits aren't discovered
> until some whacker discovers it and*s the hell out of it. And if
> we're lucky, a patch will be released a few days later.
> Linux: Open, so most security exploits are found by people tinkering
> with the code. And most of them are only POTENTIAL security threats
> that COULD be exploited. Most of the time the person who discovers it
> submits the fix him/herself.

Yet another argument for freedom of software.

Quote:> >> </linux endor*t>

> >I thought the proper tags were <plug product="linux"> and </plug>.
> >You can make it valid XML.

> Or I could just go the whole way and put it in SGML.

Heh heh :-T bad.

Anyway, this is becoming a Linux advocacy subthread;
this article has been xposted to comp.os.linux.advocacy

--
Damian Yerrick    http://www.veryComputer.com/
View full .sig:  http://www.veryComputer.com/~yerricde/sig.html

and now you must pay...

[lots of snipping]

Quote:> > >> Linux is a truly multi-user, permissions-based system,
> > >Problem: I've never figured out how to get multiple
> > >users on one computer. A computer has only one keyboard,

I see you completely missed the minicomputer revolution, and
its free *nix revival. With any kind of decent computer
running a Real OS, you can have as many user consoles (seats)
as the computer has serial ports; terminals are *really* cheap,
and very useful.

Quote:> > I'm not sure if you're joking or not...

Hard to say.

Quote:> I think he was half joking but half serious. It all depends on
> whether you say NT is multiuser: it has more than one user
> account, but only one user can be interacting with the
> computer at once.

Too true.

Quote:> > but I'm going to assume that you are and that you know
> > about virtual terminals, telnet servers, user permissions, etc.

You may be giving him too much credit.

Quote:> Pinocchio told me about Linux and how its permissions work.
> But only one user can be *using* a computer at any given time,
> except through ssh.

Your thinking seems to be stuck in the Windows local user context
mindset. With Linux telnet'ing or ssh'ing in to the machine is
for most purposes exactly the same as sitting down in front of
the machine and logging in on console.

Quote:> > >and for the price of an X terminal, a fellow can get a
> > >whole new computer.

The day of the X terminal is past; real computers are too cheap.

Quote:> > Price of an X-term? Huh?
> I think he meant a dumb graphics terminal that uses the X protocol.
> Heck, even text terminals cost $600 new.

You need to shop somewhere else. You can get perfectly functional
VT's for anywhere from $0 (just come get it) to $80, in my
experience. The market for *new* terminals looks to be a specialized
one, and the prices are a bit unrealistic as a result.

[another snip]

Quote:> > The reason I don't think books are a good way to learn
> > Linux is because of the OSes complexity and all the possible
> > variables (a lot of them having to do with the sheer number
> > of hardware components available in the x86 world).

Books are great to give you background information when you don't
have someone nearby to ask, and for reference. There's still
no better teacher than experience, but you need a certain basic
knowledge before experience can teach you anything... (see below)

Quote:> > It would be nearly impossible for any book ... to cover every
> > conceivable issue a person could face
> That's not what "For Dummies" books try to handle.

Indeed. They're good for getting your feet wet, starting from
total ignorance. See above.

Quote:> > if you encounter a problem, someone else has encountered
> > and fixed it too, and either documented it on the web
> Which requires working PPP.

Then boot back into Windows to download the info. It's a pain
but sometimes it helps.

Quote:> > or asked for help about it on Usenet.
> Which requires working PPP.

Or borrow a friend's computer. It's a pain but sometimes it helps.
You could also just have a good look in "/usr/doc"...

[snip]

Quote:> > Windows: Because it's closed, security exploits aren't discovered
> > until some whacker discovers it and*s the hell out of it. And if
> > we're lucky, a patch will be released a few days later.
> > Linux: Open, so most security exploits are found by people tinkering
> > with the code. And most of them are only POTENTIAL security threats
> > that COULD be exploited. Most of the time the person who discovers it
> > submits the fix him/herself.
> Yet another argument for freedom of software.

[snip bad *ML humor]

-Greg

        Not really. They are unreliable, uneccessarily complicated
        and thus more expensive to maintain. An X terminal has the
        benefit of being closer to an actual appliance than a PC is.
        Add fs caching to be gentle on the network and an X terminal
        is still compelling.

[deletia]

        While terminals have gone out of style, other systems that
        try to minimize the local corruptable state of a computer
        still remain quite popular.

        Just ask Electronic Arts.

--

   One of the great lies of our age is the myth that      
   Microsoft has somehow managed to turn these random      
   collections of spare parts known as PC clones into            |||
   the equivalent of a Macintosh.                               / | \

                Searching for sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:22:33 GMT in alt.aol-sucks, "Damian Yerrick"

wisdom:

<snip>

Quote:>> >> If you need help convincing the school to allow this,
>> >> explain to them the cost of one linux CD vs. a
>> >> Win98/MacOS site license.

>> >Or just buy Red Hat Linux for Dummies and say
>> >"I already put the site license on my credit card."

>I have that book too.

>> I haven't checked out the RH4D book, but the one I did
>> first get (Linux Unleashed) and several others I checked
>> out seemed, quite frankly, to be crap. IMHO, the best
>> documentation for linux exists on the net,

>I got my copy because I couldn't even get on PPP except
>in Windows.

I wasn't going in through PPP, through TCP/IP over a LAN, but the
problem I had was that my NIC wouldn't work. So I just used my working
connection in Windows to find the answers.

Quote:>> I've had very few problems that I wasn't able to solve by
>> doing a Power Search through the deja archives, and no
>> problems that I wasn't able to solve by posting a question
>> to a relevant NG

>Of course, this requires PPP access.

Which most people switching over already have in their existing OS.

Quote:>> >> Linux is a truly multi-user, permissions-based system,

>> >Problem: I've never figured out how to get multiple
>> >users on one computer. A computer has only one keyboard,

>> I'm not sure if you're joking or not...

>I think he was half joking but half serious. It all depends on
>whether you say NT is multiuser: it has more than one user
>account, but only one user can be interacting with the
>computer at once.
>> but I'm going to assume that you are and that you know
>> about virtual terminals, telnet servers, user permissions, etc.

>Pinocchio told me about Linux and how its permissions work.
>But only one user can be *using* a computer at any given time,
>except through ssh.

You can also be logged in simultaneously as more than one user via
virtual terminals or X-terms.

Quote:>> >and for the price of an X terminal, a fellow can get a
>> >whole new computer.

>> Price of an X-term? Huh?

>I think he meant a dumb graphics terminal that uses the X protocol.
>Heck, even text terminals cost $600 new.

Ah. Yeah, one'd be better off getting a cheap older Pentium system
than shelling out $600 for a dumb terminal.

Quote:>> >> For the most part, it's only the actual setup that's hard,

>> >RHL4D walks you through it.

>> The reason I don't think books are a good way to learn
>> Linux is because of the OSes complexity and all the possible
>> variables (a lot of them having to do with the sheer number
>> of hardware components available in the x86 world).

>Just plug and pray. At least Linux supports all devices that
>vendors want to support (and a few more). Lucent is porting
>its LT Win Modem to Linux.

The support's good, but it doesn't always seem to work properly. My
old 3Com 905b worked well once it was setup properly, but it involved
manually specifying an IRQ. That's just one of the little quirks many
hardware components have which it would be impossible for one book to
totally cover. As books go, my taste runs more towards short basic
tutorials like the Mandrake user guide (translation errors aside). The
only real exception I've seen to this when it comes to computer books
is the BeOS Bible, but that's kind of an isolated case.

Quote:>> It would be nearly impossible for any book ... to cover every
>> conceivable issue a person could face

>That's not what "For Dummies" books try to handle.

I've never really gone in for them, usually tend to steer more towards
the "Secrets" type books, and mostly just to learn more "behind the
scenes" stuff about subjects I'm already somewhat familiar with.

Quote:>> if you encounter a problem, someone else has encountered
>> and fixed it too, and either documented it on the web

>Which requires working PPP.

>> or asked for help about it on Usenet.

>Which requires working PPP.

Which most users already have if they've already got another OS on the
same system.

<snip>

Quote:>> >> </linux endor*t>

>> >I thought the proper tags were <plug product="linux"> and </plug>.
>> >You can make it valid XML.

>> Or I could just go the whole way and put it in SGML.

>Heh heh :-T bad.

I'm getting a headache just thinking about it...

Quote:>Anyway, this is becoming a Linux advocacy subthread;
>this article has been xposted to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Noted...

--
"Windows is the most certain guarantee of the value of unskilled
labor in modern times. [Their contribution to computer science is]
Substantial and ongoing as a negative object lesson." -Paul Lutus,
programmer

As in "X terminal" as a specialized piece of hardware that you paid
a premium for... (and some of us remember paying *quite* a premium)

Quote:>    Not really. They are unreliable, uneccessarily complicated
>    and thus more expensive to maintain. An X terminal has the
>    benefit of being closer to an actual appliance than a PC is.
>    Add fs caching to be gentle on the network and an X terminal
>    is still compelling.

True enough. I don't we're disagreeing much- an "X terminal" with
local fs caching (hard drive?) isn't no different from a "real
computer" with a particular OS configuration... So the difference
between an X terminal and a cheap PC is software, not hardware.

Quote:> [deletia]
>    While terminals have gone out of style, other systems that
>    try to minimize the local corruptable state of a computer
>    still remain quite popular.

In some places terminals never went away, or are even coming back. :)
The *idea* of an X terminal is just fine (or its bastard marketing-speak
child, the Network Computer), but having it be a specialized piece of
hardware is silly nowadays.

Quote:>    Just ask Electronic Arts.

Or Corel, or...

-Greg

        Computers in general came at a premium in those days.

Quote:

>>        Not really. They are unreliable, uneccessarily complicated
>>        and thus more expensive to maintain. An X terminal has the
>>        benefit of being closer to an actual appliance than a PC is.
>>        Add fs caching to be gentle on the network and an X terminal
>>        is still compelling.

>True enough. I don't we're disagreeing much- an "X terminal" with
>local fs caching (hard drive?) isn't no different from a "real
>computer" with a particular OS configuration... So the difference
>between an X terminal and a cheap PC is software, not hardware.

        It's considerably different in the Windows sense. Such
        a thing would be more like a games console than what
        end users think of as a WinTel PC.

        This isn't much different than some X terminals. Some
        can be expensive dedicated hardware or old recycled
        workstation machines that don't have the oompf for
        much of anything else.

Quote:

>> [deletia]

>>        While terminals have gone out of style, other systems that
>>        try to minimize the local corruptable state of a computer
>>        still remain quite popular.

>In some places terminals never went away, or are even coming back. :)
>The *idea* of an X terminal is just fine (or its bastard marketing-speak
>child, the Network Computer), but having it be a specialized piece of
>hardware is silly nowadays.

>>        Just ask Electronic Arts.

>Or Corel, or...

        EA actually makes money...

--

   One of the great lies of our age is the myth that      
   Microsoft has somehow managed to turn these random      
   collections of spare parts known as PC clones into            |||
   the equivalent of a Macintosh.                               / | \

                Searching for sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

I've used VMS on a VAX (nothing sucks like VAX!)
through DEC VT* terminals before.

Quote:> With any kind of decent computer running a Real OS,
> you can have as many user consoles (seats) as the
> computer has serial ports;

In my case, a laptop. I have COM1, a winmodem, and
an infrared port. That's about it for serial.

Quote:> terminals are *really* cheap, and very useful.

Cheap? Where.com?

Quote:> > > I'm not sure if you're joking or not...

> > > but I'm going to assume that you are and that you know
> > > about virtual terminals, telnet servers, user permissions, etc.

> You may be giving him too much credit.

I knew about that. But I can't ssh in if I don't have
something to ssh from. And virtual terminals (Alt+F1) are
just that, virtual. I can't make 4-player *tris with four
virtual terminals.

Quote:> > Pinocchio told me about Linux and how its permissions work.
> > But only one user can be *using* a computer at any given time,
> > except through ssh.

> Your thinking seems to be stuck in the Windows local user context
> mindset.

My computer (which used to have a Windows logo sticker
on it until I peeled it off) seems to be stuck in the
Sindows local user context mindset. No matter how many
virtual terminals I log on to, I'm still one sentient
being touching keys.

Quote:> With Linux telnet'ing or ssh'ing in to the machine is
> for most purposes exactly the same as sitting down in
> front of the machine and logging in on console.

That's what's cool about ssh. You don't even need BO2K.

Quote:> > > >and for the price of an X terminal, a fellow can get a
> > > >whole new computer.

> The day of the X terminal is past; real computers are too cheap.

> > > Price of an X-term? Huh?

> > I think he meant a dumb graphics terminal that uses the X protocol.

You were right, Damian. But they seem to be called
"Network Computers" now. Marketing.

Quote:> > Heck, even text terminals cost $600 new.

> You need to shop somewhere else. You can get perfectly
> functional VT's for anywhere from $0 (just come get it) to $80,

Where dot com can I find an inexpensive VT100 clone
and more serial ports for my school-issue laptop?

Quote:> > > It would be nearly impossible for any book ... to cover every
> > > conceivable issue a person could face

> > That's not what "For Dummies" books try to handle.

> Indeed. They're good for getting your feet wet,
> starting from total ignorance. See above.

RHL4D elped me get my PPP running.

Quote:> > Which requires working PPP.

> Then boot back into Windows to download the info.
> It's a pain but sometimes it helps.

Pain in the ass especially if a fellow can't even get
PPP running because the winmodem vendor hasn't released
the linmodem driver. Yet.

--
pin0cchio
gnu/linux port maintainer at pin eight software

Problem: Linux doesn't support enough stuff.  Y E T !

Reminds me of Sega Dreamcast's controller with a visual
memory unit. Now that's a terminal.

Quote:> This isn't much different than some X terminals. Some
> can be expensive dedicated hardware or old recycled
> workstation machines that don't have the oompf for
> much of anything else.

Like my old 486? Anyone know how to set it up?

Quote:> One of the great lies of our age is the myth that
> Microsoft has somehow managed to turn these random
> collections of spare parts known as PC clones into         |||
> the equivalent of a Macintosh.                            / | \

What's that supposed to be? An Atari sign?

Quote:>         Searching for sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

I'll check that out. I'll just have to wait for Lucent
to get its stupid linmodem driver out.

--
pin0cchio
gnu/linux port maintainer at pin eight software

This message was posted using no Micro$oft software.
http://www.gnu.org/   http://www.linux.org/

        That's exactly what I was alluding to.

Quote:

>> This isn't much different than some X terminals. Some
>> can be expensive dedicated hardware or old recycled
>> workstation machines that don't have the oompf for
>> much of anything else.

>Like my old 486? Anyone know how to set it up?

        Just do a web search. There are small university
        departments that have recycled machines in this
        way. You should be able to bump into the docs.
        There might be a howto as well.

        Disk space would likely be the limiting factor.
        You can do a diskless config but that's more
        complicated. Although, lsl.com sells netcards
        that you can use for this purpose.

Quote:>> One of the great lies of our age is the myth that
>> Microsoft has somehow managed to turn these random
>> collections of spare parts known as PC clones into         |||
>> the equivalent of a Macintosh.                            / | \

>What's that supposed to be? An Atari sign?

        It's called a FUJI.

[deletia]

Dumbstupid NT-based GTE.

Quote:> Or, since you say that PPP works for you under Windows,
> you can simply boot Windows and find the information you
> need from there.

Ecch.

Quote:> (Of course, you must have solved this problem already,
> since you did post a message on USENET).

Got PPP working on an external 33.6 3Com, but the linmodem
driver for the Lucent LT Win Modem is still a bit alpha.

Quote:> >> >Problem: I've never figured out how to get multiple
> >> >users on one computer. A computer has only one keyboard,

> >I think he was half joking but half serious. It all depends on
> >whether you say NT is multiuser: it has more than one user
> >account, but only one user can be interacting with the
> >computer at once.

> >> but I'm going to assume that you are and that you know
> >> about virtual terminals, telnet servers, user permissions, etc.

duh.

Quote:> I think he's thinking of serial terminals,

Correct.

Quote:> Linux supports serial terms, though PCs typically
> only have one serial port for a terminal

Damn.

Quote:> and on some systems, that port is used by the mouse.

Good thing not on mine.

Quote:> Linux also supports multiport cards,
> which were popular back in the BBS days.

The BBS days are still upon us, and they still will be
until the last major BBS falls. This BBS is America Online.

Quote:> Microsoft Windows. Beyond crappy. Beyond belief.

True.

Quote:> Microsoft Windows. It could be worse, but it'll take time.

True.

Quote:> Microsoft Windows. The problem for your problem.

You're telling so much truth, your nose is *disappearing*!

--
pin0cchio
gnu/linux port maintainer at pin eight software

"If only Micro$oft knew the difference between right and
wrong, then Windows would be a real operating system."