some bees nest stirring, was just how much can you do with?
Lee A. Stone
stonedge at myfastmail.com
Tue Mar 5 18:30:00 UTC 2013
I'llmake a brief comment on store bought computers Karen. This computer
came from Walmart . it wasloadedwith wall to wall winndows andmy
choice was todonate $150plusto the Linda andBillll Gates foundation by
wiping ouut windows and having archlinux installed . So for you dos is
great and for me Linux isthe place to be. Goodluck with your projects. L
Tue, 5 Mar 2013,
Karen Lewellen wrote:
> it is all a matter of how one wants to spend the energy. YOutube is not the
> only place for video content, and Tim indicated that I may not be able to say
> attend a webnir live in Linux either.
> but honestly I have been successfully using broadband for years now...I have
> more memory in my dos machine then likely is in this Linux box, and I do what
> I need to so there are no memory barriers.
> No. big. deal. for me because it is important.
> It is also worth it to me having my machines built instead of buying them off
> the shelf.
> I know people who have gone through 10 or 12 computers to my three or four.
> I know first hand from my experience that the so called effortless Linux
> install is a joke.
> I know first hand based on my personal experience that I can do easily what I
> desire to do in DOS with a little effort.
> this is 100% my personal experience, and I would never suggest it will be
> anyone Else's.
> Your Linux experience clearly varies, just as y dos one varies from yours.
> Neither are discounted by the other, they are just different.
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Tony Baechler wrote:
> > Also, I forgot to mention that I don't think DOS works very well with
> > broadband, or at least I never got it to work. Even if you find a packet
> > driver for your network card and actually get the Lynx port to work, you'll
> > be limited to fairly slow download speeds just due to the fact that DOS has
> > memory limitations and is not multitasking. A multitasking OS can dedicate
> > a process just to downloading and has a lot better memory management. Where
> > this applies to you is getting back to things like YouTube, where you really
> > can't use a graphical browser in DOS and would need to download the video
> > locally. Also, since the packet driver itself takes memory and Lynx uses
> > quite a bit of memory, not to mention your screen reader needing a good
> > chunk, you'll rapidly lock up your system just due to the 640 KB limitation.
> > You can load some things in upper memory and some things run in protected
> > mode, but TSRs don't as I understand it and the amount of upper memory is
> > also limited due to DOS limitations. Taking the youtube-dl script, it
> > requires Python. I think there might be an ancient version of Python for
> > DOS, but it's probably too old to work, and again you're back to running out
> > of memory as any modern interpreter will take a lot.
> > As a final note, if you ever get a modern machine with a plug and play
> > network card, DOS won't work with it because it won't have a static IRQ.
> > On 3/5/2013 1:21 AM, 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. 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. 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. Lynx in Linux is literally at least
> > > twice as fast as DOS as I'm sure you've seen from Shellworld.
> > >
> > > 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
> > --
> > Have a good day,
> > Tony Baechler
> > tony at baechler.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blinux-list mailing list
> > Blinux-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at redhat.com
If you want to travel around the world and be invited to speak at a lot
of different places, just write a Unix operating system.
-- Linus Torvalds
More information about the Blinux-list