Day Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I usta run Mandrake 7. it was really nice. Somebody stole my mdk 7 > install disk. And the new Mandrake 9 lets me go thru the whole install > before it tells me 'MKINITRD FAIL'. :-(
You might try the mandrake irc channels for some help there! > But so glad to see a distro that has gotten away from the 'not > invented here' mindframe. Heh. I don't think Mandrake is particularly better -- or worse -- there. But then, I don't agree that it's a problem to start with! I've seen Linux developers (or more correctly, Open Source developers) bend over backwards to port the functionality of some obscure program they happened to love. > [...] > Have you tried any of the 32 bit dos programs? cwsdpmi, dpmi,... Not yet. So send me some! > 'it should be ok'... except for the flash, JAVA, mp3, and other gui > crap being put into webpages so the webmaster can maintain his reputation > for kewl at the expense of functionality. But if a dos terminal can only > get email and ftp files, that's about as much as can be hoped for. Well, the app will work as well as it CAN. I'm hoping to allow connecting to the Internet, and little else. That said, a proxy running under Linux could strip much of that stuff if you don't want it. > When it comes to functionality, what the hell was wrong with the > 'print screen' key? Except for locking up when no printer was attached? :) > [...] > Depends on the success of emulation. As mentioned in another post, DOS > does things with color and fonts that you dont do in the system > administrated monochrome terminal screen. Send any program you use and I'll check 'em out. I've seen lots of color already, and it works fine in the default DOSemu setup. However, I know there are programs that won't, so I want to test! > [...] > I dunno. Seems like it takes a big outfit like MS, Mozilla, or Opera > to keep up with all the gui goodies being inserted into webpages. Are any > of them interested in supporting dos? How's the OS/2 version doing? I > dont see any intrinsic reason why a 32 bit dos with dpmi, QEMM, and > other forms of functionality cannot be done to run a browser, but > clearly Michael at Arachne could not keep up with it. And that's what I'm questioning: The value of fighting what's largely acknowledged to be a (grudgingly) losing battle. > Yeah, I dont see any reason why the Linux text mode hasta be so > clunky. The problem is so few of the "quality" apps for DOS are open source. If they were, they could be ported easily! > Dos users dont like being told they dont have permission to look at or > edit a file. The tranlation of market niche from network to the home > desktop needs work. So they should log in as root, but not be surprised when they trash their entire system JUST LIKE THEY COULD UNDER DOS! It's not recommended, but you can sure do it! > Like they load up the distro with 1.5 gigs of system administration and software developement tools, but they cant > afford to stick in a couple *k* to alias the DOS commands? Argh! Day, no distribution I know of forces you to load 1.5G of admin tools to do anything you need to. They may provide a bunch of tools for CONVENIENCE. And we pointed out NUMEROUS sources for your DOS alias wish last year (I think), including a shell designed SPECFICIALLY for DOS users. But then again, what's so tough about learning a few new commands if you're a die-hard CLI user? > But, like your saw with mandrake 9, they have made a lotta progress. > I'd prolly be content if the dos app *functionality* was ported to > Linux, but most of their distro programming efforts are aimed at the gui and > multimedia interface. Again, if the DOS apps were open source they'd exist. But Windows is the target, so yeah, the major focus is on the GUI these days. > Which is worrisome; you can say things with > images that you cant with text, but ulike with text, fabrication is a more > difficult problem to sort out. Text, being based on a fixed set of > symbols, can be more clearly evaluated, and either the numbers add up, > or- they dont. Reason vs emotion. Er, I think you're referring to digital manipulation of images, and implying that can't be done with text. Just watch the spin coming out this election year to demonstrate the fallacy of THAT thinking! - Bob To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
