On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 09:17:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> Ah, Just another troll
>

Ah, just another self-proclaimed, stuck-up moderator.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 21 Sep 2024 08:49:41 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 20-09-2024, Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> a écrit :
>>
>> Who gives a flying fuck about 50-year-old computing.
>
>
> Every tool you promote is an old tool, every tool you despise is a
> modern tool. Whatever your choices, the terminal, the editor, the GUI
> (you say you don't use GUI but you are stuck in the old fvwm by the
> way).
>

Software does not "age" like biological organisms or material corrosion.

Software "ages" via a lack of development and nearly all the tools
I utilize are still being actively maintained.

I also do not use "fvwm." I use "fvwm3" which is the latest incarnation
of probably the best window manager available:

https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3

A GUI is useful so far as it provides an easement and anything beyond
easement is pure useless dazzle, and it is mainly dazzlement to which
most "modern" GUIs strive.

The point and purpose of computing is to produce information and the
CLI is just as effective if not more so.

You are advised to keep your meaningless piffle to yourself.

>
> Because rust is
> far from an easy language to master.
>

Ha, ha, ha!

Try using C for threading and cache optimization. YOU would quickly
fall apart and run to Rust or some other crutch.

>
> So you prove your real argument against rust is because it's a new
> language. And you prove, at the same time that your real argument
> against python is because it's newer than C, too.
>

More piffle.

C, being just shorthand for assembly, is the ultimate language.
There is no need for anything else.

In the true arena of computing, which is science and engineering,
C is lord and master.

For scripting, however, and other trivial stuff, anything can suffice:
bash, perl, tcl, python, etc.

Yes, python is a mere SCRIPTING language that has been inflated to
enormous proportions to satiate all the programming ignoramuses
that have flocked around it.

So, again, learn to keep your piffle to yourself.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 2024-09-21 04:30, Paul wrote:
> On Fri, 9/20/2024 5:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>>>>
>>>> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
>>>>
>>>> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>>>>
>>>
>>> GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
>>> something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
>>> been as easy, to do it earlier.
>>>
>>> The 8088 was 1979.
>>> The 68000 was 1979.
>>
>> The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.
>
> At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.

Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sat, 9/21/2024 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/09/2024 22:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>>>>
>>>> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
>>>>
>>>> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>>>>
>>>
>>> GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
>>> something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
>>> been as easy, to do it earlier.
>>>
>>> The 8088 was 1979.
>>> The 68000 was 1979.
>>
>> The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.
>>
>> ...
>>
> FSVO 'equivalent' :-)

You pick processor families, by their decorator colours.

Once I saw this, I just had to have one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMS9900#/media/File:KL_TI_TMS9900_Black_Background.jpg

The colour really does make a difference. The white one is obviously better...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000#/media/File:XC68000.agr.jpg

The TMS9900 only drew 1 watt, so you didn't need a cooler, and
got to enjoy the shiny white finish.

Paul

In comp.os.linux.misc Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>
> Ah, just another self-proclaimed, stuck-up moderator.

This is Usenet, and unmoderated groups, there are no moderators here.

On 21/09/2024 16:32, Rich wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, just another self-proclaimed, stuck-up moderator.
>
> This is Usenet, and unmoderated groups, there are no moderators here.
>

That's why the use of the word "self-proclaimed".

On 21/09/2024 12:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-21 04:30, Paul wrote:
>> On Fri, 9/20/2024 5:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
>>>> something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
>>>> been as easy, to do it earlier.
>>>>
>>>> The 8088 was 1979.
>>>> The 68000 was 1979.
>>>
>>> The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the
>>> 8088 was the 68008.
>>
>> At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.
>
> Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
> used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
> dunno if all models.
>

My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
It was all I could afford

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 21/09/2024 11:34, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 09:17:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah, Just another troll
>>
>
> Ah, just another self-proclaimed, stuck-up moderator.
>
>
Sorry, I was just talking to myself.

I didn't mean to offend your precious sensibilities.

It was merely a note to self to plonk the aforesaid wanker

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:36:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 21/09/2024 11:34, Lester Thorpe wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 09:17:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ah, Just another troll
>>>
>>
>> Ah, just another self-proclaimed, stuck-up moderator.
>>
>>
> Sorry, I was just talking to myself.
>

That's a bad habit.

>
> I didn't mean to offend your precious sensibilities.
>

Me thinks you got that backwards.

>
> It was merely a note to self to plonk the aforesaid wanker
>

It's the usual recourse of a failed self-proclaimed moderator.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 21/09/2024 19:50, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:36:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 21/09/2024 11:34, Lester Thorpe wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 09:17:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, Just another troll
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, just another self-proclaimed, stuck-up moderator.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry, I was just talking to myself.
>>
>
> That's a bad habit.
>
>
>>
>> I didn't mean to offend your precious sensibilities.
>>
>
> Me thinks you got that backwards.
>
>
>>
>> It was merely a note to self to plonk the aforesaid wanker
>>
>
> It's the usual recourse of a failed self-proclaimed moderator.
>
>
Were you naturally born a complete asshole, or did you spend a lifetime
perfecting it?

>
>
>
>

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[snip]

>> Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
>> used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
>> dunno if all models.
>>
>>
> My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
> It was all I could afford

I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

--
94 days until the winter celebration (Wednesday, December 25, 2024
12:00:00 AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Theology: The study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas."

Mark Lloyd wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
>>> used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
>>> dunno if all models.
>>>
>> My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
>> It was all I could afford
>
> I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
> for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
> low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
> got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

I remember the "Twister" format you could use on the Atari ST to speed up
floppy copy.

--
Spouse, n.:
Someone who'll stand by you through all the trouble you
wouldn't have had if you'd stayed single.

On 2024-09-22 20:02, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
>>> used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
>>> dunno if all models.
>>>
>>>
>> My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
>> It was all I could afford
>
> I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
> for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
> low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
> got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
went for bigger.

Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked
for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested
several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the
time. There was also a table of bad sectors to enter manually, but it
did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them
as such in the FAT.

I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-09-20 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/09/2024 01:23, clinker wrote:
>> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
>> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
>> Windows existence as it is known today.
>>
> most things are *possible*
>
>> OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
>> proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
>> no one remembers it.
>
> DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is to
> load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...

Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
software, or load/download programs with a stub.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 25/09/2024 08:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-20 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 20/09/2024 01:23, clinker wrote:
>>> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
>>> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
>>> Windows existence as it is known today.
>>>
>> most things are *possible*
>>
>>> OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
>>> proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
>>> no one remembers it.
>>
>> DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is
>> to load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...
>
> Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
> MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
> software, or load/download programs with a stub.
> Well you could in theory kick the processor into 'large' mode and use a
lot more memory

>

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

Carlos E.R. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-09-20 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 20/09/2024 01:23, clinker wrote:
>>> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
>>> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
>>> Windows existence as it is known today.
>>>
>> most things are *possible*
>>
>>> OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
>>> proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
>>> no one remembers it.
>>
>> DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is to
>> load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...
>
> Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
> MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
> software, or load/download programs with a stub.

I remember the damned overlays when writing a Turbo C "GUI" (a la ncurses).

I later worked on a large MASM project where you had to load the correct
64k bank when calling a function. Painful.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- attributed to Bill Gates

--
What scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?
-- J. D. Farley

On Wed, 9/25/2024 3:51 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-22 20:02, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
>>>> used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
>>>> dunno if all models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
>>> It was all I could afford
>>
>> I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
>> for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
>> low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
>> got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
>
> I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I went for bigger.
>
> Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the time. There was also a table of bad sectors to enter manually, but it did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them as such in the FAT.
>
> I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)

The head on that drive, has probably welded itself
to the surface of the platter. Drives back then
did not have plastic landing ramps, like they do today.

There is nothing wrong with turning it on, but it could
damage or rip the head off it. It doesn't have to end well.

If you turn it on and hear a "strange noise", just put it
back in the box. No one will know.

Paul

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:51:36 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

>> I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB
>> (RLL)
>> for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
>> low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
>> got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
>
> I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
> mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
> be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
> went for bigger.

32MB was the largest partition size supported by the early version of
FAT16 (16-bit sector count * 512-byte sector size). The disk could be
larger, but then you'd need more partitions.

The drive I had was actually a little larger than the maximum, so I could
create a small second partition.

BTW, there is a later version of FAT16 with a 32-bit sector count.
> Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked
> for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested
> several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the
> time. There was also a table of bad sectors to enter manually, but it
> did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them
> as such in the FAT.
>
> I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

--
91 days until the winter celebration (Wednesday, December 25, 2024
12:00:00 AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

[snip]

>> I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.
>
> It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)
>
> The head on that drive, has probably welded itself to the surface of the
> platter. Drives back then did not have plastic landing ramps, like they
> do today.

So you'd rather have it in "somewhat better condition" and completely
useless than take a chance that you can get some use out of it?

[snip]

--
91 days until the winter celebration (Wednesday, December 25, 2024
12:00:00 AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:57:26 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.

Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?

On Wed, 9/25/2024 2:57 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.
>>
>> It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)
>>
>> The head on that drive, has probably welded itself to the surface of the
>> platter. Drives back then did not have plastic landing ramps, like they
>> do today.
>
> So you'd rather have it in "somewhat better condition" and completely
> useless than take a chance that you can get some use out of it?
>
> [snip]
>

You need to collect statistical information on the survival rate
of stiction drives from that era. I don't know what the chemistry
possibilities are, for head-to-platter contact for a couple decades.

I have a stiction drive here. It needed a tap on the side of the
drive housing, to release the head and allow the spindle to spin.
You could say, this practice made me <cough> nervous. Because
if you hit it too hard, you could be doing long term damage.
That drive is five feet from me right now, and hasn't been powered
for 25 years. What "chemistry" has been going on in there ? Does
the platter lube suffer breakdown over time ? Dunno. You might not
ever be able to separate the heads from the platter, in a glove box,
without ruining the heads, and needing to replace the head assembly.

Drives with landing ramps, I have no problem with you starting one
of those. I regularly test my old 4GB IDE drive, and it still works
like a champ. I had a 2GB drive fail, a Barracuda 32550N, and the
head lock failed on that drive, destroying the heads and gouging
the platter. They didn't use the head lock idea (solenoid design)
for very long. At a guess then, anything 4GB or more capacity,
is likely perfectly safe to test at your convenience. But a
150MB-250MB drive ? Primed failure material. Already needed to be
whacked to make it work, on a daily basis. Hardly good gambling
odds. Like betting on the pony with three legs, at the track :-)

Paul

On 2024-09-20 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is
>>> to load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...

On 25/09/2024 08:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem
>> with MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in
>> the software, or load/download programs with a stub.
>> Well you could in theory kick the processor into 'large' mode and use a
>> lot more memory

In the mid 1980s, my group was building a small communications
appliance. We built a single-board PC and used a DOS clone as our
bootloader. But booting from floppy was slow as molasses, until I wrote
a small TSR (terminate-and-stay-resident) extension that hooked the BIOS
read call and buffered a track at a time. Simple and efficient.

Later, we built at larger, modular system. We found it more economical
to buy a Taiwanese PC motherboard than to roll our own system package.
We put a DOS Extender to good use (80386 in 80286 protected mode). The
multitasking part of KA9Q was in there somewhere.

On 2024-09-25, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> I have a stiction drive here. It needed a tap on the side of the
> drive housing, to release the head and allow the spindle to spin.

I had one of those. The housing was pretty solid, so I needed
to give it a whack with a screwdriver handle.

> You could say, this practice made me <cough> nervous. Because
> if you hit it too hard, you could be doing long term damage.

I certainly would consider replacing such a drive, or at least
not storing anything on it that wasn't thoroughly backed up.

One day I visited my wife's office. One of her cow orkers
has having trouble bringing up her Mac. I recognized the
problem as stiction, popped the case open, and tapped the
cover of the hard drive with a fingertip. The cow orker's
initial state of panic was quickly replaced by relief when
the drive spun up. I strongly suggested she take a backup
and consider replacing the drive. I don't know whether she
ever did - people rarely do...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-09-25 20:54, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:51:36 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB
>>> (RLL)
>>> for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
>>> low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
>>> got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,
>>
>> I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
>> mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
>> be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
>> went for bigger.
>
> 32MB was the largest partition size supported by the early version of
> FAT16 (16-bit sector count * 512-byte sector size). The disk could be
> larger, but then you'd need more partitions.

Which must be the reason, when I applied a compression driver, to use
two partitions.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-09-25 23:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:57:26 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.
>
> Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?

They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your
application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.

I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking), then
offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.

I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there was
one in version 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI

I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.

--
Cheers, Carlos.