some bees nest stirring, was just how much can you do with?

[Karen Lewellen]

Hi,
quickly in context here.


On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Tony Baechler wrote:

> OK, a couple of quick thoughts, based on my own experience.  Yes, you can run 
> Lynx, etc from DOS.  However, it's much, much slower and requires messin 
> around with packet drivers and dial-up networking.  Linux has that built-in 
> automatically and almost always just works.  I never got Lynx to run in plain 
> DOS because I couldn't find a packet driver and TCP/IP software for my 
> network card, which is one of the big reasons why I switched to Windows 98 
> and the command prompt.

Really? I never had that issue, finding packet drivers even for the 
network cards I use in my laptops as well as the network card I have in my 
machine.  I even helped someone set up a wireless network structure using 
dos.
I suppose it is a matter of ones willingness to do the research.
While business vision the dos screen reader I use and its companion 
windvision came together I just never found anything I needed to do in 
windows.
there is a dos package for ssh telnet and ssh ftp,  that works terrific.
I used to do the older dialnet package for dial up strictly in Lynx, then 
learned about shellworld.
To my  mind it is not an either or situation, but a use of both in a 
structure that I know can work right now.
I am quite used to setting up dialup etc.



The second issue is that, due to DOS memory 
> limitations, the ports will have a lot less features unless they use djgpp 
> and a DOS extender to get around the 640 KB limit.  That's called protected 
> mode and again, Linux doesn't have that limitation.


I am not sure why it is assumed to be hard to find such dos extras.  I 
find them all the time.


   Finally, Lynx at least 
> used direct screen writes, so Vocal-Eyes didn't automatically read the screen 
> without a set file.  In Linux and Cygwin, it was able to read fine on its own 
> because it used BIOS writes.

I do not use vocal eyes, but business vision.  never had issues getting 
direct as well as bios screen reading.


Lynx in Linux is literally at least twice as 
> fast as DOS as I'm sure you've seen from Shellworld.
>


Shellworld is not Linux so to speak, its <spelling> freebs.  There are 
somethings that an run in Lunx that cannot run here as a result.    while 
you may be correct as to speed, I am again not thinking of substituting 
one for the other.
My goals instead would let me swiftly and efficiently as to productivity 
combine say elinks with mplyer in the dos port for the sort of things I 
cannot do in shellworld.
Then there are the things like Lillypond which can only be done in Linux. 
That is an advantage for that single program, that cannot be duplicated in 
DOS.


I appreciate your helping me think this through.
To my mind though both options serve a purpose.  i sometimes use lynx at 
shellworld, sometimes use  links.  I sometimes run pdf2txt for converting, 
and sometimes send the pdf file to robobraille via gmail.  I am not going 
to stop using shellworld for what it does well,  simply add what can work 
differently well via the fastest means i have at hand.
For the moment, that is not Linux.
Thanks for providing your brilliance!
Karen



> On 3/4/2013 11:03 AM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>>  Still if elinks and mplayer exist ported for DOS, why go through the
>>  extreme
>>  mayhem of finding someone local enough to learn speakup and ora and so
>>  forth
>>  to teach me in the first place?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>
>