On 8/19/24 2:26 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
>>> Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about the part of EFI boot configuration that is store in NVRAM?
>>>
>> That doesn't change very often. Most times it will still be the same as
>> yesterday.
>>
>> I haven't found that being a problem the few times I've needed to do the
>> restoration.
>
> You obviously never had to restore because of failed hardware.

What ??? Hardware BREAKS ???!!!

If it's in any way a 'critical' box it's best to
do a track-by-track backup. 'dd' will do it, but
the backup will be as large as your source disk
so a 'sparse' util is the way to go.

https://www.maketecheasier.com/clone-entire-hard-drive-linux/

There are a few others.

For WINDERS, something like Macrium is good, but
again there are others. FREE versions of such
software may NOT pick-up Linux/UNIX partitions
however.

Ordinary back-ups can save the most current DATA,
but NOT the lower-level structure required to
completely restore a disk to bootable condition.
Both are needed. If you're at a biz, the bosses
WILL be counting the minutes until you can re-boot
and get all the data restored.

Some go to 'cloud' in an attempt to get around
these sorts of problems ... but, as we've seen,
the whole cloud can go down and then you're
really screwed.

Wrote a lot of backup pgms ... from just scripts
to 'C', Pascal and Python. There are weirdnesses
and safety issues people might not think of right
off the bat. Translating directory trees to some
other device/folder is fun ... got that down to
about four or five lines but it can take more
if folder names repeat down the chain.

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:08:14 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/18/24 9:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 21:38:23 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> For ConfigFilePhobes ... I'd still rec VBox.
>>
>> That’s why Xen Orchestra offers such a nice GUI.
>>
>> (There’s a command line behind it, so you can get to that if you want.)
>
> Alas "Orchestra" is hardly freeware ...

No, it’s Free software.

On 19/08/24 20:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/08/2024 17:18, MarioCCCP wrote:
>> Imvho opinion windows is preferably run inside a virtual
>> machine. Win11 runs very well virtualized, and does not
>> break anything outside. Files can be shared among guest
>> and host. VMWare manages this really smoothly (with
>> aggressive caching and delayed committing to the
>> network-disk).
> +1
> Virtual box was when I switched to it from VMware a better
> UI and screen driver,

For a long time I have been using VirtualBox, but lately it
failed to load old saved images in its own format for
unknown reason, and that sparked the reason to give a try to
VMWare. Its free version is simple and does not seem to
manage snapshotting, but I make manual backups.

> If you are a 'lnuix ' person who needs windows occasionally,
> VB or VMware is the way to go,

yes, very rarely. I just use windows to run a KZUR scanner
software, whose linux version is buggy and does not even
detect the scanner itself (which is very slowly managed
directly under linux, with generic video source programs)

> If you need raw winders fer gaming, buy a separate machine
> for the job!

no, never been a gamer

>

--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
MarioCPPP

On 20/08/24 04:01, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 18:18:38 +0200, MarioCCCP wrote:
>
>> Imvho opinion windows is preferably run inside a virtual machine. Win11
>> runs very well virtualized, and does not break anything outside.
>
> I think that after XP, Microsoft wised up and prohibited running consumer
> versions of Windows inside a VM.
there must have been a 180° turn then after windows 8.1.
I have installed Win11 from scratch (no upgrade) and created
a microsoft account on it not later than May 2024, and the
system never complained.
It is also very tame with respect to updates and running
long times without connection at all (I can't see the
necessity of keeping it connected to the internet while
simply scanning paper notes).
They must have decided to offer user experience also to user
that would never have accepted rude behaviour from an OS,
refusing to keep it rather then bend on their knees.
And It is a wise choice.

--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
MarioCPPP

In article <va0teh$37bdd$1@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
D'Oliveiro) wrote:

> I think that after XP, Microsoft wised up and prohibited running
> consumer versions of Windows inside a VM.

You may be mistaken. My employer has run loads of instances of Windows 7,
10 and 11 in VMs, and some 8.1. They were Enterprise, rather than Home,
but I'd be surprised if that made a difference.

John

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> On 8/19/24 4:06 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Aliexpress has more of those, but many of those come without docs, so
>> it's basically luck to get it to work, and if you want to have some
>> continuity in buying Aliexpress is a bad idea.
>
> I never buy from Ali. Decided awhile back to just
> get ONE nice USA Amazon acct. If they don't have
> it I don't buy it. Don't wanna make my card
> numbers even more accessible to the PRC.

They do accept PayPal now. Plus since I use pre-paid cards for
online transactions with only enough money loaded for each
purchase, any fraud attempts would likely fail quietly due to
"insufficient funds", or at least be easily spotted.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:51 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:

> In article <va0teh$37bdd$1@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
> D'Oliveiro) wrote:
>
>> I think that after XP, Microsoft wised up and prohibited running
>> consumer versions of Windows inside a VM.
>
> You may be mistaken. My employer has run loads of instances of Windows
> 7, 10 and 11 in VMs, and some 8.1. They were Enterprise, rather than
> Home, but I'd be surprised if that made a difference.

Yes, it makes a difference.

On 8/20/24 6:33 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>> On 8/19/24 4:06 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> Aliexpress has more of those, but many of those come without docs, so
>>> it's basically luck to get it to work, and if you want to have some
>>> continuity in buying Aliexpress is a bad idea.
>>
>> I never buy from Ali. Decided awhile back to just
>> get ONE nice USA Amazon acct. If they don't have
>> it I don't buy it. Don't wanna make my card
>> numbers even more accessible to the PRC.
>
> They do accept PayPal now.

Long back I started to set up a PayPal acct, but
changed my mind, cancelled, about halfway thru.

Then for weeks I kept getting fake "Your PayPal
Account May Have Been Compromised - Log In Here !"
mails :-)

> Plus since I use pre-paid cards for
> online transactions with only enough money loaded for each
> purchase, any fraud attempts would likely fail quietly due to
> "insufficient funds", or at least be easily spotted.

Pre-paid cards can be good, or too limiting.

My main cardholder USED to have a utility for
creating a "fake" card with just x-dollars on
it up to y-date. But then ownerships changed
and that went away. IMHO it was VERY useful
and needs to make a big come-back.

Meanwhile, well, I just keep relatively low limits
on my few cards. Most frauds go for the low-hanging
fruit and then vanish - not gonna bother trying to
increase the limits or anything. Also real CCs now
come with a number of legal protections against
fraud - ones that other forms of payment don't have.
How many biz want a routing number directly into
a checking/savings account now ? DON'T. Got yer
bank accounts with "overdraft protection" so if
one gets drained they can start draining all the
others ? DON'T.

On 8/20/24 1:33 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:08:14 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/18/24 9:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 21:38:23 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> For ConfigFilePhobes ... I'd still rec VBox.
>>>
>>> That’s why Xen Orchestra offers such a nice GUI.
>>>
>>> (There’s a command line behind it, so you can get to that if you want.)
>>
>> Alas "Orchestra" is hardly freeware ...
>
> No, it’s Free software.

Without licenses/restrictions ???

Didn't LOOK like that from the home page - a couple
of tabs with "pricing" mentioned ...

Anyway, I don't need an orchestra anymore - some
geek on a flugelhorn will do just fine :-)

On 8/19/24 2:25 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> This is probably the chicken-and-egg aspect of it. Probably the best is
>>> having an isolated (removable or otherwise unplugged) bootable medium
>>> ready in case it's needed.
>>>
>> All computer users should have an emergency kit. The main component
>> of which being a bootable utilities system. In today's world, such a
>> bootable emergency kit is a Live/Install USB. And most of those have
>> a 'writable' partition that can be filled with extra utilities on top.
>
> The recommended thing is a specialized rescue/forensic system, such as
> grml. Why carry the ballast of a live system with GUI, Audio, Video,
> Development Environment etc if it can also be more lightweight?
>
>>> I guess the main risk with multiple boot scenarios involving Windows is
>>> Windows wiping it out on purpose. (Or perhaps out of incompetence? I
>>> mean, it's said not to attribute to malice...)
>>
>> Once you receive Windows on your new machine, you have a choice: erase
>> it competely or minimise it down to almost nothing.
>
> "almost nothing" nowadays means a middle two-digit number of
> gigabytes. A windows that is short on space won't update at all, a
> windows that is not so short on space will try to update and then fail
> with a nondescript eight-digit error number. Only a windows that as
> ample space will update cleanly.
>
>> * Windows 7 was "Peak Windows".
>
> Windows 10 and 11 are better than their reputation if you leave the
> data protection stuff aside.

Nah ... Win2k was "peak Windows" ... got bloated
and over-complex from there :-)

On 8/19/24 6:02 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> Fighting buggy scripts, that's hard.
>>
>> Those scripts are in use on millions of installations millions of
>> times daily. They can hardly be unusably buggy.
>
> Most aren't multi-boot installations. Anyway, if you accept that
> writing menu.lst entries wasn't hard, why adopt a bootloader that
> requires those scripts in the first place? They're just another
> point of failure, and no I'm not going to be convinced against
> personal experience that it's an impossible point of failure.

We're looking at "legacy" here ... old, oft complex,
solutions to really twitchy systems issues. They
evolved over time. Now they're kinda "frozen".

A much smarter kind of "GRUB" likely CAN be writ.
No more config files ... it can "just know" and
act accordingly. The TRICK is getting anybody to
actually put in the effort. Old GRUB *works*,
even if in a kludgy manner ......

>>> Old Grub just did
>>> what you asked it to, like Syslinux/Extlinux mercifully still do.
>>
>> In my world, using exotic solutions without pressing reason is
>> considered a technical liability.
>
> Yes well I install Linux on personal PCs instead of Windows or
> MacOS, so that battle is already completely lost in the eyes of
> many.

Heh heh ... is NOT gonna happen ! :-)

If anything, M$/Apple will try to coerce BIOS
programmers to make it even MORE difficult to
boot anything BUT their systems. They have
just HUGE $$$ clout ....... it's a kind of
ideological war ....

Even the current maze of 'secure' boot settings
can be hard to get Just Right. Remove some of
those "other" setting from BIOS and ......

They'll SAY it's all for "security".

On 8/20/24 9:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:51 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
>
>> In article <va0teh$37bdd$1@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
>> D'Oliveiro) wrote:
>>
>>> I think that after XP, Microsoft wised up and prohibited running
>>> consumer versions of Windows inside a VM.
>>
>> You may be mistaken. My employer has run loads of instances of Windows
>> 7, 10 and 11 in VMs, and some 8.1. They were Enterprise, rather than
>> Home, but I'd be surprised if that made a difference.
>
> Yes, it makes a difference.

"Home" versions are badly crippled right where
you don't want them to be crippled. M$ is about
$$$ after all .....

I remember when M$ was celebrated, the developers
friend. THAT didn't last long ....

ANYWAY ... usable VMs of most any system - CP/M
on up - can be made and run at this point.

On 2024-08-21, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> On 8/19/24 2:25 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> * Windows 7 was "Peak Windows".
>
>> Windows 10 and 11 are better than their reputation if you leave the
>> data protection stuff aside.
>
> Nah ... Win2k was "peak Windows" ... got bloated
> and over-complex from there :-)

IMHO the peak was somewhere between 2k and XP. Win2k had
driver issues (for me, an instant blue screen when plugging
in a USB-to-MIDI adaptor), while XP handled it smoothly.
I still run XP under VirtualBox for my modest Windows needs.
For some reason Win7 and I have bad chemistry, and it's only
gotten worse since. As the old saying goes, XP is a great
improvement on its successors.

--
/~\ 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 8/21/24 1:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-21, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/24 2:25 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Windows 7 was "Peak Windows".
>>
>>> Windows 10 and 11 are better than their reputation if you leave the
>>> data protection stuff aside.
>>
>> Nah ... Win2k was "peak Windows" ... got bloated
>> and over-complex from there :-)
>
> IMHO the peak was somewhere between 2k and XP. Win2k had
> driver issues (for me, an instant blue screen when plugging
> in a USB-to-MIDI adaptor), while XP handled it smoothly.
> I still run XP under VirtualBox for my modest Windows needs.
> For some reason Win7 and I have bad chemistry, and it's only
> gotten worse since. As the old saying goes, XP is a great
> improvement on its successors.

Well, 'drivers' have always been with us.
THESE days they've found ways to more or
less HIDE the issue. The further back you
go alas ......

Win2k was kind of the last incarnation of Win-NT
and was oriented towards biz/pro uses.

It had most of the logic and structure we find
in modern Win. It did NOT have all the BLOAT
and incomprehensible complexity of XP and beyond.
By then "eye-candy" and all-integration had
become the main things.

It is alleged that Win2k was the LAST Winders
that a single person could hold entirely in
his head - to know all interactions and such.
Then that old guy retired and ......

I have a VBox of XP ... has its occasional uses,
esp with GUI interfaces for "devices". However
I still liked 2k better. Have a VBox of IT too
and STILL fool around with it.

Hell, I still write little things for CP/M-86
as well ... best not to forget the past - it
had its good points today's people might tend
to overlook :-)

Geez, remember when DOS came on ONE floppy ?
You could DO STUFF with it, rather COMPLEX
stuff actually. Not a 'toy' system. Even the
smallest usable Linux requires a LOT more space.
Even SCO Unix from the day was 'fatter'.

SCO kind-of still exists as "OpenIndiana". Sun
bought it, then Oracle bought Sun, then ...

This is a good robust system, but is 'different'
enough to require some work, even for Linux
vets.

On 22/08/2024 06:06, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> Geez, remember when DOS came on ONE floppy ?
>   You could DO STUFF with it, rather COMPLEX
>   stuff actually. Not a 'toy' system. Even the
>   smallest usable Linux requires a LOT more space.

The correct counter to that is to point out that in no wise was DOS an
'operating system' - it was only a program loader.

In fact you could entirely bypass it to write directly to the hardware
and many industrial applications did exactly that, yea even unto running
their own multitaskers and so on.

concurrent CP/M was about the smallest multiuser multitasker OS that was
ever crammed onto an 8086 platform IIRC. Or there might have been a real
time one or two as well.

Linux by its nature sets out to be an unrestricted UNIX like system,.
complete with all the complexity and bells and whistles needed to have
multiple users, multiple processes , interprocess communications,
daemons to handle single thread hardware like a disk, multi-layered
security, and the ability to intersperse drivers in a rigorous manner to
access arbitrary hardware.

In short it is a complete multitasking multiuser general purpose
operating system and you simply cannot compare it with DOS.

SCO Unix needed a 386 to run - only Venix IIRC ran off a 286 - badly.

It was extremely successful because it actually worked. At an affordable
price

I've seen 256 users via serial cards running on a 386 running SCO.
Extreme, but possible, but 64k users was a more normal limit with 32
being normal.

We ran about 150 over telnet at one point once the TCP/IP worked....:-)

This was PDP/VAX territory ...at a price people could afford.

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

On 2024-08-22, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> Win2k was kind of the last incarnation of Win-NT
> and was oriented towards biz/pro uses.
>
> It had most of the logic and structure we find
> in modern Win. It did NOT have all the BLOAT
> and incomprehensible complexity of XP and beyond.
> By then "eye-candy" and all-integration had
> become the main things.

XP's user interface looks as if it had been designed
by Fisher-Price. But if you go into display settings
and select the "Classic" style, you get something
much more businesslike.

--
/~\ 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

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote at 06:53 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On 8/20/24 9:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:51 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
>>
>>> In article <va0teh$37bdd$1@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
>>> D'Oliveiro) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that after XP, Microsoft wised up and prohibited running
>>>> consumer versions of Windows inside a VM.
>>>
>>> You may be mistaken. My employer has run loads of instances of Windows
>>> 7, 10 and 11 in VMs, and some 8.1. They were Enterprise, rather than
>>> Home, but I'd be surprised if that made a difference.
>>
>> Yes, it makes a difference.
>
> "Home" versions are badly crippled right where
> you don't want them to be crippled. M$ is about
> $$$ after all .....
>
> I remember when M$ was celebrated, the developers
> friend. THAT didn't last long ....
>
> ANYWAY ... usable VMs of most any system - CP/M
> on up - can be made and run at this point.

At the very least, you don't have to pay money to make Windows apps like
what Apple does... yet
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 19:18:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> XP's user interface looks as if it had been designed by Fisher-Price.

Windows, Apple OS X, even BeOS ... all got the idea that you must tie the
GUI inextricably into the OS kernel, possibly for “efficiency” reasons or
to enforce common GUI standards or something.

Meanwhile the *nix folks blithely cruised on with their 1980s-based keep-
the-GUI-as-a-separate-modular-layer idea.

And guess what: that turned out to be a much more versatile and future-
proof architecture.

On 8/22/24 10:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 19:18:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> XP's user interface looks as if it had been designed by Fisher-Price.
>
> Windows, Apple OS X, even BeOS ... all got the idea that you must tie the
> GUI inextricably into the OS kernel, possibly for “efficiency” reasons or
> to enforce common GUI standards or something.
>
> Meanwhile the *nix folks blithely cruised on with their 1980s-based keep-
> the-GUI-as-a-separate-modular-layer idea.
>
> And guess what: that turned out to be a much more versatile and future-
> proof architecture.

Yes ... but not so great for "gaming" - and that's
been a big money-maker over the years.

As usual, what's "better" in the computing universe
kind-of depends on what you INTEND TO DO.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:41:21 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/22/24 10:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Windows, Apple OS X, even BeOS ... all got the idea that you must tie
>> the GUI inextricably into the OS kernel, possibly for “efficiency”
>> reasons or to enforce common GUI standards or something.
>>
>> Meanwhile the *nix folks blithely cruised on with their 1980s-based
>> keep- the-GUI-as-a-separate-modular-layer idea.
>>
>> And guess what: that turned out to be a much more versatile and future-
>> proof architecture.
>
> Yes ... but not so great for "gaming" ...

Actually, it’s working great for gaming, as the Steam Deck proves.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 05:54:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <va9876$qcj0$1@dont-email.me>:

> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:41:21 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/24 10:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> Windows, Apple OS X, even BeOS ... all got the idea that you must tie
>>> the GUI inextricably into the OS kernel, possibly for “efficiency”
>>> reasons or to enforce common GUI standards or something.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile the *nix folks blithely cruised on with their 1980s-based
>>> keep- the-GUI-as-a-separate-modular-layer idea.
>>>
>>> And guess what: that turned out to be a much more versatile and
>>> future-
>>> proof architecture.
>>
>> Yes ... but not so great for "gaming" ...
>
> Actually, it’s working great for gaming, as the Steam Deck proves.

Great strides have been made with proton -- I can play Starfield, Elite
Dangerous Odyssey, Borderlands 3, and Tiny Tina's Wonderland.

People who say you can't game on Linux haven't been keeping up
with the times...

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"We are not a clone."

On 8/22/24 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/08/2024 06:06, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> Geez, remember when DOS came on ONE floppy ?
>> You could DO STUFF with it, rather COMPLEX
>> stuff actually. Not a 'toy' system. Even the
>> smallest usable Linux requires a LOT more space.
>
> The correct counter to that is to point out that in no wise was DOS an
> 'operating system' - it was only a program loader.

Ummm ... no ... more than that - and ENOUGH for a LOT
of practical applications.

> In fact you could entirely bypass it to write directly to the hardware
> and many industrial applications did exactly that, yea even unto running
> their own multitaskers and so on.

You can write directly to the hardware in Linux too, IF
you can find the instructions. It's "not recommended"
of course ...

> concurrent CP/M was about the smallest multiuser multitasker OS that was
> ever crammed onto an 8086 platform IIRC. Or there might have been a real
> time one or two as well.

I don't remember a RTOS version of CP/M - but someone
may have given it a shot. Even way back in the day there
were a few RTOS - OS-9 being perhaps most prominent
(still being sold) which is "Unix-ish".

The diffs between CP/M and DOS were relatively few.
I think it WAS a good idea to bring 'pip' into the
OS kernel however.

> Linux by its nature sets out to be an unrestricted UNIX like system,.
> complete with all the complexity and bells and whistles needed to have
> multiple users, multiple processes , interprocess communications,
> daemons to handle single thread hardware like a disk, multi-layered
> security, and the ability to intersperse drivers in a rigorous manner to
> access arbitrary hardware.

I agree that Linux/Unix are generally "better" than DOS/Win.
However there IS a price.

> In short it is a complete multitasking multiuser general purpose
> operating system and you simply cannot compare it with DOS.
>
> SCO Unix needed a 386 to run - only Venix IIRC ran off a 286 - badly.

I remember the 286 - it was considered a big improvement
at the time - 8-Mhz clock ! The 386 was 'better' yet in
a larger number of ways.

> It was extremely successful because it actually worked. At an affordable
> price
>
> I've seen 256 users via serial cards running on a 386 running SCO.
> Extreme, but possible, but 64k users was a more normal limit with 32
> being normal.

Oh, very capable, no question - esp for the time. DID need
more CPU/Mem than DOS however. Biz/govt could afford it,
Joe User, not so much. Wasn't long after that 'terminal'
users, well, nobody wanted it anymore - they all wanted
nice GUIs.

> We ran about 150 over telnet at one point once the TCP/IP worked....:-)
>
> This was PDP/VAX territory ...at a price people could afford.
Yet sales were not enough to keep it alive. This
wasn't an M$ propaganda thing either, 'natural
selection' more instead. FEW wanted/needed what
Unix could do - on PC boxes anyhow. On larger
corp/govt/ed systems Unix did much better. Made
some guy named Linus kinda jealous .....

If you liked the 8088/86 era, there's still 'ELKS'
embeddable Linux kernel ... that IS very tiny.

On 8/23/24 2:01 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 05:54:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <va9876$qcj0$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:41:21 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/22/24 10:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Windows, Apple OS X, even BeOS ... all got the idea that you must tie
>>>> the GUI inextricably into the OS kernel, possibly for “efficiency”
>>>> reasons or to enforce common GUI standards or something.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile the *nix folks blithely cruised on with their 1980s-based
>>>> keep- the-GUI-as-a-separate-modular-layer idea.
>>>>
>>>> And guess what: that turned out to be a much more versatile and
>>>> future-
>>>> proof architecture.
>>>
>>> Yes ... but not so great for "gaming" ...
>>
>> Actually, it’s working great for gaming, as the Steam Deck proves.
>
> Great strides have been made with proton -- I can play Starfield, Elite
> Dangerous Odyssey, Borderlands 3, and Tiny Tina's Wonderland.
>
> People who say you can't game on Linux haven't been keeping up
> with the times...

Ummmm ... I'd say "benchmark" ....

Some of the capabilities you tout have more to do
with the sheer speed of latter-day CPUs than the
merits of the underlying OS.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:37:25 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/23/24 2:01 AM, vallor wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 05:54:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <va9876$qcj0$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> Actually, [Linux is] working great for gaming, as the Steam Deck
>>> proves.
>>
>> Great strides have been made with proton -- I can play Starfield, Elite
>> Dangerous Odyssey, Borderlands 3, and Tiny Tina's Wonderland.
>>
>> People who say you can't game on Linux haven't been keeping up with the
>> times...
>
> Ummmm ... I'd say "benchmark" ....

Let’s just say, the Steam Deck wipes the floor with the Windows-based
competition.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:37:25 -0400, "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
wrote in <OQ6dnRNhof67s1X7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@earthlink.com>:

> On 8/23/24 2:01 AM, vallor wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 05:54:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <va9876$qcj0$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:41:21 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/24 10:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows, Apple OS X, even BeOS ... all got the idea that you must
>>>>> tie the GUI inextricably into the OS kernel, possibly for
>>>>> “efficiency”
>>>>> reasons or to enforce common GUI standards or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile the *nix folks blithely cruised on with their 1980s-based
>>>>> keep- the-GUI-as-a-separate-modular-layer idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> And guess what: that turned out to be a much more versatile and
>>>>> future-
>>>>> proof architecture.
>>>>
>>>> Yes ... but not so great for "gaming" ...
>>>
>>> Actually, it’s working great for gaming, as the Steam Deck proves.
>>
>> Great strides have been made with proton -- I can play Starfield, Elite
>> Dangerous Odyssey, Borderlands 3, and Tiny Tina's Wonderland.
>>
>> People who say you can't game on Linux haven't been keeping up with the
>> times...
>
> Ummmm ... I'd say "benchmark" ....
>
> Some of the capabilities you tout have more to do with the sheer
> speed of latter-day CPUs than the merits of the underlying OS.

Some games are even faster on Linux than Windows, thanks
to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXVK

The games run fine on Linux. Welcome to the 2020's. :)

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?"