Day Brown wrote: > [...] Actually, I have a 1948 Dodge, which is completely legal on any > US highway. And- fully functional; like a 486, it can get me from > one place to another.
But -- and directly to the point of having to UPDATE things on occasion -- you must legally have seatbelts on many (all?) of those same highways unless you're fond of tickets, even if they weren't original equipment or even options at time of manufacture. And you may have to UPDATE the vehicle with a modern emissions system in many jurisdictions, even if not at home. Similarly, you're old 486 is just fine with your present ISP -- WITH and UPDATE of the software you're running, namely old redhat. > Your comments dont seem to sort out the diff between the pleasures of > the GUI multimedia interface, and the *essential* critical app power > of ASCII, which is what this message is. Perhaps I was not clear. I > am not saying to abandon the GUI. But I am saying that to have to > *rely* on it to do email and/or download applications to solve your > GUI problems, just makes no sense. I'm not saying ANYTHING about GUIs. I am saying that your entire point about RedHat and others "planned obsolescense" because your ISP requires new authentication options is 100% wrong. Incorrect. Bogus. Your old 486 running THAT OLD LINUX DISTRIBUTION will work fine, with the appropriate software UPDATES. You are NOT required to update a Linux distribution to run new software. > Nor is it a moral issue; no evil plot. Microsoft is trying to > monopolize the system. It is a for-profit transnational corporation, > that is what it instinctively wants to do. That sounds like an evil plot to me! > I just dont see any reason that we users should go along with that. > And what alternatives we have, the simpler they are, the more bullet > proof the system. Which is presumably why you loaded Linux. Which is why it's silly to say anything remotely like the linux distributions are forcing you to update to new versions. > Which if you wrote assembly language, you would instinctively > understand. I used to do ASM all the time, from the 6502 to the Intel x86. Do you think you're the only one thta has mastered it? I still don't understand your meanderings, though. > If however, your professional position is based on network management > of increasingly complex multimedia communications, then this kind of > simplification reduces your intellectual turf. My professional position is based on knowing how things actually work, and not just posting conjecture and stating falsehoods about operating systems, network or the Internet as a whole. > On the one hand, since you seem in doubt, Microsoft has the 'plot'. [didn't you just use "no evil plot"?] > The Linux distros are just responding to it, but in doing so, also > increase their own profitability/viability by increasing the > intellectual turf they create by developing strategies to cope with > sabotage software and SPAM. That may be true with some commercial distributions, but is complete idiocy with many others. You DO realize that many Linux distributions operate on a completely non-profit basis, right? > sO- they dont want to solve the problems, they want to milk them... That makes no sense if the distribution is non-profit, or non-commercial in nature. Much (if not most) Linux development is done by unpaid volunteers. > rather than going back to a hardware/network configuration based on > simpler software with less eye candy that is, like the DOS/FIDO > networks, harder to hack into in the first place. DOS was commercial. Indeed, many FIDO bbsen were as well. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, there was nothing inherently "secure" about FIDO, BBSen or DOS. > There's no reason you cant use 8N1 rather than the internet 7 bit to > maintain a connection with a remote host... and receive multimedia > data to be processed by your GUI terminals This is completely nuts. You think everything crossing the Internet is still done using 7 bit formats? Streaming video using uuencode perhaps? > but still have a home server that does just one thing well. transfer > data so that come hell or high water, you can still get advice from > places like this on how to solve problems. You can also get lots of completely bogus and misleading information, and downright bad advice! > [....] it was just gonzo easier to buy a new distro install CD for > ten bucks or whatever, rather than spending my time trying to track > down the source of the problems. At least you admit that's the fundamental, and underlying problem. YOU decided to update rather than update the handful of packages required. Now who's willingly heading down the path of added complexity? > [...]There are lots of Mandarin minds that instinctively welcome the > complexity that empowers them to be in a position to assist others to > function, and relatively few who wonder if there is not a way to > simplify the system to improve reliability and security. This is amusing in light of the fact that you updated to a newer distribution simply because it was "gozo easier" to just update your distribution rather than understanding it. The "security" you repeatedly cite with the old systems has been repeatedly shot down on this list and elsewhere as an illusion. To think ANY static system is "secure" in the face of ongoing and determined scrutiny is foolhardy. > [...] Oh sure. but why would I risk the power to do email, not have a > backup system? Your previous message referred to REPLACING the Internet, not just providing alternative email connectivity. If you're after alternative (particularly dial-up using the cheap long distance rates you cited) email connectivity, uucp can still be viable. > >> Has anyone tried this kind of thing to get here? > > Yes, the entire world did. > > Not that I have seen, 'here' meaning this list. To use a dial-up network to access the list? Or build an alternative Internet from tin cans? Or use uucp to send/receive mail? Yes, I have used uucp to send email messages world-wide. And yes, it is still viable though little used anymore. And yes, it would interface just fine with the "wired" internet so long as there is at least one node on the network that will hand mail off between systems (a "gateway" between them.) This exists. Today. It has been proven to be extremely robust and scalable. It works on old (old, old, old) systems, and I ran it under DOS from 1987-1989. On PC with 640KB RAM... though it in turn simply handed off my mail to a "more powerful" 286 or 386-based system running Xenix. > [...] The information highway might should be a public utility just > like the interstates are, and just like the interstates, we limit the > ability of entrepeneurs to use the public space to intrude on our > awareness of traffic conditions. And you would like for it to be paid for with public taxes then? Presumably some sort of taxation that doesn't hit ever citizen who won't be using it? Or are you just another big government, tax and spend problem solver? > I bring this up here, because folks here understand more about what > the minimum amount of power and driveability are needed to use to get > where they wanna go. I know that driving a jalopy down it isn't what makes the interstate road system work! > If you wanna spend the money on an SUV or a high speed sportscar, > that's ok with me, but I should still be able to get in line with a > motorcycle. On this big government works project you're talking about, absolutely. And as noted (repeatedly), your old 486 CAN get on today's 'net just fine, so long as you're willing to expend the effort to "bring it up to standards" driven by the same big bad government that makes you wear seatbelts (or fines you if you don't.) > [...] Whatever I do is trivial compared to what I expect other geeks > will do as the RF hardware prices fall. Wait... you were referring to 5 minutes per day at long distance dial-up rates. What's that to do with RF? > [...] They are already figuring out how to monkey with the cellular > system. Here we go again: What is it you want to do? - Bob
