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

Christopher Chaltain chaltain at
Tue Mar 5 20:05:12 UTC 2013

On 05/03/13 11:54, 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.

I agree, it's all where one chooses to spend their energy. I chose, a
long time ago, to move to a multi-tasking and then a 64-bit operating
system that is constantly being updated. Sure there was a learning
curve, but now I just install most anything I want with an apt-get
command. There's almost no hunting for things or working hard to get
them to work.

> 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.

Having more memory in your DOS box doesn't mean anything since DOS can
only access the first MB regardless of how much memory you have in your
system. You may not be running into memory barriers, but that's probably
because you're not editing large documents, working with large spread
sheets, handling large multi media files, accessing large databases and
so on. It's too bad you have to waste all of that money on a 64-bit
system with multiple processors and all of that RAM, although getting a
basic system that is tailored to run DOS would probably cost a fortune
these days, if you can still even find the parts.

> I know first hand from my experience that the so called effortless Linux
> install is  a joke.

I've never heard the term "effortless Linux install" but I've probably
installed dozens of boxes and virtual machines with Linux in the last
few years, from Ubuntu 10.04 through Ubuntu 12.10. I'm able to do these
installs without any sighted help. I wouldn't say it's effortless, and
I'm sure the repetition has made it easier for me, but I don't ever
recall being able to install DOS, Windows or OS/2 without some sighted

> 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.

I've lost the beginning of this thread, but if you're happy running DOS,
and you have no reason to change, why are you asking questions on a
Linux list?

> Karen
> 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
>> -- 
>> Have a good day,
>> Tony Baechler
>> tony at
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blinux-list mailing list
>> Blinux-list at
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at

Christopher (CJ)
chaltain at Gmail

More information about the Blinux-list mailing list