Thanks for the info, Norman. I know those of us engaging in a topic
some on this list deem un-QL, risk a public spanking at the next "QL
is xx". However, as long as the QL is at the heart of the discussion,
I believe we may just wriggle out of chastisement if not censure..
On 16/01/2016 17:24, Norman Dunbar wrote:
<>
> Yo! Norman. Does QPC2 still work under current versions of Wine?
Yes, pretty much perfectly. I have no problems. Accessing the Floppy
Disc hardware obviously doesn't work though - as far as I remember
Marcel telling me, a long time back, it uses direct sector access and
that's to the inbuilt hardware of a Windows box as opposed to an
emulator's USB floppy. (Wine Is Not an Emulator!)
Still, I believe I can use floppy images now at version 4. I haven't
tried that yet though.
Well, thas something..
> My only
valid Linux installation ATM is on RasPi - too slow to be worth
testing.
It won't work. Wine is x86/amd-64 only. The Pi is ARM, so WINE isn't
even available in the repositories.
But of course! Duh! me.
Almost every year I reconsider whether its worth emigrating to Linux,
but its just such a hassel.
Really? I moved over to "The Dark Side" way back in 2001 just after
Simon's article in Linux Format which mentioned my Web Site at the
time. Anyone wishing to switch simply has to pick up a copy of the
latest Linux Format (the cover DVD has Mint 17.3 (32 and 64 bit
versions) and OpenSuse Leap (64 bit only) on it) and a large section
inside on migrating simply from Windows to Linux Mint 17.3 - which is
what I use for business and pleasure.
You'll be surprised at how simple it can be to switch. Other Windows
migrants like "Mageia" but I haven't tried it.
Ever since RedHat V1.00, every now and again I install, and play with,
some Linux distro on a spare machine, or as dual boot with M$W, or as
now: In a VM. Hell! even my phone sports Ubuntu! And I still hate Linux!
I suppose it has something to do with the fact that Linux is the
illegitimate child of Unix, that grotesque, bloated discharge of evil
IBM, a corporation we all loved to hate back in the day. Sticking a
Disneyesque front-end on to those Byzantian innards still does not
make for the efficient, safe and elegant - "orthogonal" - OS humanity
really, really deserves. IMHO. While M$W is not much better it has the
advantage of being mainstream! which may be a bit of a relief for many
of us who have been paddling against the PC tide for many years.
<>
I think that Linux is vastly more secure than Windows. Security is
built in, not bolted on after the fact. Does Windows still come with
an administrator user which has no password? It did at XP and that
little fact was buried on page 16 of a small booklet full of adverts
and not much else when I got my first XP laptop.
Most of the security concerns of the last century were taken care of
by the NT re-write. By the time of XP, MSDOS had completely
dissappeared from mainstream M$W distros. The security issues of today
are built in to our "apps" and the way we use them - a much more
terrifying threat! I cant imagine Linux users are any less exposed to
those than users of any other OS out there.
Yes, there is lots to hate in any OS, I know Mac users who whine about
this and that never working, updates that break things and those
damned U2 albums that appear every 5 minutes like a virus! I know
Linux users who whine about other stuff. I have been known to shout at
QDOS myself from time to time!
:-)
Cheers,
Norm.
I guess what Im looking for is a machine - in a single,
energy-efficient unit - that does three separate things:
1) Run my "QL" - preferably on a bare metal, min 1GHz,
MC68-compatible CPU and capabilities comparable to QPC2 and SMSQmulator
2) An all-other-modern-PC-worker-unit for word processing, art work,
music, etc, that has no business whatsoever being online.
3) An online unit for browsing, email, getting updates, etc
1 & 2 can read and write to partitions on 3, but 3 has no access at
all to 1 & 2
Of course the perfect scenario is not possible today (viz dream 1),
but it might be possible to come pretty close. Perhaps I should think
this through and do some tests rather than throw it all out here? But
just out of interest what dyall think?
A. A base unit sporting a widely supported Linux distro. Using a VM
box with W2k for running some QL/SMSQ emulator. A second VM running
Linux or some Windoze configured as unit 2, and a third VM for unit 3.
B. A base unit runing (eg) W7, but otherwise configured as A. above
C. Something else..
Per
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
