James Miller wrote:
>[...] I've lost any grasp of what's really at issue here. Could someone please
>summarize for me the precise points in dispute? Or is it just a
>prognostication contest?
>
>
Well, for my part, it's an ongoing response to "X can't be done".
Whenever Day (or anyone) starts implying that:
1. Linux distributions require you to update to the latest version
regularly.
2. Linux developers are all working hand-in-hand with:
A. The telcos
B. Microsoft
C. Each other
as part of some massive plot to force users to update regularly for
their own profits.
I get really pissed off. It's simply not true, and there's no reason
Linux can't operate just fine on an older system such as those of
interest to subscribers of this list. Specific to this thread: There's
NO REASON a Linux system of any vintage can't be updated to use any of
the current crop of ppp options for dial-up. You DO NOT have to chuck
old hardware to successfully run Linux on the modern Internet. You MAY
have to learn a few things and do some configuration. And of course,
chucking the old hardware and buying the latest software IS easier.
That's not the point though!
As to the wireless aspects of the thread: Day keep implying that some
sort of uprising of the masses will be required to implement an
"alternate" Internet, free (in his mind) of the spam and security issues
of the current incarnation, free of cost and readily available to users
in remote areas. He also seems determined that this will require use of
licensed spectrum, akin to the model of yahoos using illegally
over-powered amps on CBs years ago (ignoring the fact that they were
pretty much limited to TRANSMITTING and not RECEIVING at long distances
unless everyone used the same "hell with everyone else" approach --
which sort of chokes on scalability.)
So "for the record" -- lest any poor soul searching for alternatives
stumble upon list archives -- I want it to be clear that:
1. Such things are being done legally today, in full compliance with the
FCC.
2. Wireless is being done for "freenets" using 802.11 technologies for
local communities, and hams are using packet radio and other techniques
over larger ranges.
3. These solutions should work equally well for older and newer hardware
(but again -- you may have some configuration to do!)
4. The low data rates associated with long distances shouldn't be a
problem for anybody that simply wants "to get the mail through." The
uucp protocols worked wonderfully as the major transport for email and
usenet news for years. It STILL works, but has falled off in use as
bandwidth for most users has become a commodity item. But, just like
that old 486 in the closet, the old technologies can still fill many uses.
I'm not a ham operator, so haven't used the packet radio stuff myself
but I know it was in full development as far back as 1987. I've
personally used uucp, adapted to an IBM XT-class system running DOS
(probably 2.x back then).
>But, to more substantial issues, just in case. Bob, you never managed to
>give us the most important details of your networking experiment with
>DOSEMU. At least I didn't get them. It seemed like the listserv hardware
>was having some of its typical glitches about the time you were getting
>down to brass tacks with your project. How did it finally come off? Did
>you get it working? Details, please.
>
>
I sent some "success" messages about that time, but wasn't sure if they
made it out or not. I had luck with getting quite a few apps to work
under DOSemu directly, but was running out of options to test. I was
unable to test a DOS printer directly attached, and had hoped someone
else would do so. Many (though not all) of the "screen intensive"
programs appeared to work just fine.
I'll re-send the last message shortly.
- Bob
