advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader - Handheld

This is a discussion on advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader - Handheld ; Hi, I am looking for a cheap handheld device which would allow me to do only three things: read text (ascii) files, read HTML files and read PDF (acrobat reader) files. I do not need any other capability (no PDA ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

  1. advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    Hi,

    I am looking for a cheap handheld device which would allow me to do
    only three things: read text (ascii) files, read HTML files and read
    PDF (acrobat reader) files. I do not need any other capability (no
    PDA stuff). I would need it to have a USB port to connect to a
    computer (an old USB 1 will do fine) and I would want it to be capable
    to be managed as a regular storage device (flash stick, hard drive,
    whatever) through this USB port. Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
    want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
    only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
    it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
    based software.

    I would need about 1GB of storage on it, or at least a slot which
    could accomodate a 1GB microSD card.

    Lastly, since I do not care about the usual PDA bells-n-whistles but
    only want to read books with this device, it is welcome to be old and/
    or slow as long as it is *cheap*.

    Is there such thing on the market?

    Many thanks for any pointers,

    VS


  2. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am looking for a cheap handheld device which would allow me to do
    > only three things: read text (ascii) files, read HTML files and read
    > PDF (acrobat reader) files. I do not need any other capability (no
    > PDA stuff). I would need it to have a USB port to connect to a
    > computer (an old USB 1 will do fine) and I would want it to be capable
    > to be managed as a regular storage device (flash stick, hard drive,
    > whatever) through this USB port. Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
    > want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
    > only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
    > it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
    > based software.
    >
    > I would need about 1GB of storage on it, or at least a slot which
    > could accomodate a 1GB microSD card.
    >
    > Lastly, since I do not care about the usual PDA bells-n-whistles but
    > only want to read books with this device, it is welcome to be old and/
    > or slow as long as it is *cheap*.
    >
    > Is there such thing on the market?


    Hard to say since you didnt say anything about how you want to be able
    to view the htmls and pdfs particularly and how 'handheld' it needs to be.

    The problem with true handhelds like Palms and PDAs is that the screen
    size is quite small, so a pdf or html wont be that readable if its displayed
    full screen. And isnt very convenient to use if you have to scroll both
    horizontally and vertically.



  3. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    On Mar 5, 1:21 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:

    > Hard to say since you didnt say anything about how you want to be able
    > to view the htmls and pdfs particularly and how 'handheld' it needs to be.


    fair enough. Well, the PDFs I could only hope to look at by scrolling
    around the page I suppose. However, the PDF-capability would probably
    be the least important one. ascii text & html are really what I need
    most. Small screens are ok, by the way, unless of course they are
    ridiculously minute, but as long as the text is readable (even with
    glasses) I will be happy (HTML woud adapt to the screen size anyway,
    at least with any halfway decent browser, as should the text.

    As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
    regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
    size would be great.


  4. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote:
    > On Mar 5, 1:21 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    >
    >> Hard to say since you didnt say anything about how you want to be
    >> able
    >> to view the htmls and pdfs particularly and how 'handheld' it needs
    >> to be.

    >
    > fair enough. Well, the PDFs I could only hope to look at by scrolling
    > around the page I suppose. However, the PDF-capability would probably
    > be the least important one. ascii text & html are really what I need
    > most. Small screens are ok, by the way, unless of course they are
    > ridiculously minute, but as long as the text is readable (even with
    > glasses) I will be happy (HTML woud adapt to the screen size anyway,
    > at least with any halfway decent browser, as should the text.
    >
    > As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
    > regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
    > size would be great.


    Perhaps an Ultra Mobile PC?
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/f...-09Mobile.mspx



  5. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote:
    ....
    > As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
    > regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
    > size would be great.


    It sounds like you want one of those ebook readers.
    Something like the following...
    http://www.irextechnologies.com/products

    Unfortunately, it's very expensive.

    Anthony

  6. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote:
    > I am looking for a cheap handheld device which would allow me to do
    > only three things: read text (ascii) files, read HTML files and read
    > PDF (acrobat reader) files. I do not need any other capability (no
    > PDA stuff). I would need it to have a USB port to connect to a
    > computer (an old USB 1 will do fine) and I would want it to be capable
    > to be managed as a regular storage device (flash stick, hard drive,
    > whatever) through this USB port. Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
    > want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
    > only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
    > it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
    > based software.


    I was a programmer writing applications for Palm OS devices for
    several years, so I'm fairly familiar with this market. To my
    knowledge, there is not any Linux-based PDA that is cheap. Yes,
    some of them are reasonably priced, perhaps, but that is not the
    same thing as cheap.

    Your lack of need for PDA functions probably won't gain you anything.
    Any device with the horsepower and storage to do e-books can also
    do PDA functions, and the software to do PDA things is not that
    complicated, so it will tend to exist on any such device.

    I'm not sure if I understand the need to be able to use the device
    itself as a USB mass storage device. You can easily take the flash
    card (SD Card, usually) out of most devices and use it in a card
    reader, which will present it as a USB mass storage device.

    As far as software that works with Linux, I'm not really that familiar
    with Windows Mobile devices (Pocket PC devices, etc.), and I'm not
    sure if they can communicate with Linux. I do know that certain
    models of Palm devices (most? all?) can communicate with Linux
    systems easily, although that will usually be when running Palm's
    Hotsync protocol over USB, not by managing it as USB mass storage
    device.

    My recommendation (although there may be other good options) is
    to look at getting a used Palm device and using Plucker (see
    http://www.plkr.org/ ) as the software for reading e-books. Plucker
    is free, simple, and cross-platform. Almost all Palm devices in the
    last 3 to 5 years have had SD Card slots. Off the top of my head,
    one in particular that might be a reasonable choice is the Palm
    Tungsten T3. It's a few years old, but it has a color display with
    a resolution of 320x480, it has an SD Card slot, and it looks like
    you might be able to get one on eBay for $100-ish. There are several
    other models of Palm device that would be reasonable as well, but
    most have a 320x320 screen, and the bigger screen would be nice if
    your primary purpose is to read books. Another reasonable model
    is the newer Tungsten T|X, but the T3 is probably better made and
    cheaper. (On the other hand, the T|X has wi-fi and more internal
    storage.)

    - Logan

  7. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    On Mar 5, 1:22 pm, "vees" wrote:

    > fair enough. Well, the PDFs I could only hope to look at by scrolling
    > around the page I suppose. However, the PDF-capability would probably
    > be the least important one. ascii text & html are really what I need
    > most. Small screens are ok, by the way, unless of course they are
    > ridiculously minute, but as long as the text is readable (even with
    > glasses) I will be happy (HTML woud adapt to the screen size anyway,
    > at least with any halfway decent browser, as should the text.


    > As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
    > regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
    > size would be great.


    Would the Linux based Nokia 770 handheld computer meet your needs?

    --
    Ron


  8. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    "vees" writes:
    > Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
    > want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
    > only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
    > it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
    > based software.


    Type "Zaurus" into ebay.

  9. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    On Mar 6, 12:55 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "vees" writes:
    > > Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
    > > want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
    > > only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
    > > it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
    > > based software.

    >
    > Type "Zaurus" into ebay.



    Hi friends, thanks for your comments.

    Tobias: while this Ultra Mobile PC looks neat, my acute allergy to
    anything Microsoft (and the price) stand in the way of me considering
    it.
    Anthony: yes, the iRex readers would be a dream come true, but they
    are out of my range financially
    Logan: thanks for all your info. As you can tell I am a total PDA
    newbie. And you are quite correct, could use a micro/miniSD to
    exchange data (I already have an adapter for my computers which I use
    to interface with my phone). Most Windows devices cannot communicate
    with GNU/Linux but the opposite quite often is possible (i.e. by by-
    passing the proprietary software) as soon as the protocols are reverse-
    engineered). But using GNU/Linux is not at all a must for me as long
    as I can find a way to load up books to the device, be it by USB or
    microSD cards.
    Ron: the Nokia sounds perfect, all I need is to find a used one for a
    cheap price...
    Paul: call me silly & paranoid, but I do not trust the entire ebay
    thing. There are simply too many schemes going on there. But the
    Zaurus looks fantastic for sure.

    Kind regards,

    VS


  10. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote
    > Paul Rubin wrote
    >> vees writes


    >>> Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not want it to come with any
    >>> proprietary software suite which is usable only with Windows
    >>> or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace it).
    >>> Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with
    >>> Linux- based software.


    >> Type "Zaurus" into ebay.


    > Hi friends, thanks for your comments.


    > Tobias: while this Ultra Mobile PC looks neat, my acute allergy to
    > anything Microsoft (and the price) stand in the way of me considering it.


    > Anthony: yes, the iRex readers would be a dream
    > come true, but they are out of my range financially


    > Logan: thanks for all your info. As you can tell I am a total PDA newbie.
    > And you are quite correct, could use a micro/miniSD to exchange data
    > (I already have an adapter for my computers which I use to interface with
    > my phone). Most Windows devices cannot communicate with GNU/Linux


    That is just plain wrong. They all can.

    > but the opposite quite often is possible (i.e. by by- passing the proprietary
    > software) as soon as the protocols are reverse- engineered).


    You dont need to do that, normal networking works fine.

    > But using GNU/Linux is not at all a must for me as long as I can find a
    > way to load up books to the device, be it by USB or microSD cards.


    > Ron: the Nokia sounds perfect, all I need is to find a used one for a cheap price...


    Dunno, my superficial reaction is that the screen is
    too small unless you dont plan to read much using it.

    > Paul: call me silly & paranoid, but I do not trust the entire ebay thing.


    More fool you.

    > There are simply too many schemes going on there.


    They are trivially avoidable by ignoring sellers which have little
    feedback and which can have faked up what feedback they do have.

    > But the Zaurus looks fantastic for sure.




  11. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > vees wrote


    >> (I already have an adapter for my computers which I use to interface with
    >> my phone). Most Windows devices cannot communicate with GNU/Linux

    >
    > That is just plain wrong. They all can.


    OK, Rod, since you're an expert on this, how does one synchronize a
    Windows Mobile device (i.e. a Pocket PC) with a Linux desktop machine?

    - Logan

  12. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    Logan Shaw wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> vees wrote


    >>> (I already have an adapter for my computers which I use to interface with my phone). Most
    >>> Windows devices cannot communicate with GNU/Linux


    >> That is just plain wrong. They all can.


    > OK, Rod, since you're an expert on this, how does one synchronize a
    > Windows Mobile device (i.e. a Pocket PC) with a Linux desktop machine?


    Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.

    You havent even established that the OP needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.



  13. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    On Mar 7, 1:30 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.
    > You havent even established that the OP needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.


    well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this PDA
    is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))

    other than that, the SMB protocol does allow unices to mount NTFS/
    fat32 partitions of course, and as far as I know NFS is not
    implemented on Windows. but that is just a sidebar to the real thing
    which is that none of the filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be
    recognizable by Windows, that Windows drivers do not function without
    a wrapper and that the vast majority of software shipped with Windows-
    based machines have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/
    Linux box.

    So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
    lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to
    say that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
    machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.



  14. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote:
    > On Mar 7, 1:30 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    >> Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.


    >> You havent even established that the OP
    >> needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.


    > well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
    > PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))


    Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive specs,
    you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system. The better
    Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.

    And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.

    > other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
    > unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,


    Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
    obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
    drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.

    > and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
    > that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
    > filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,


    By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.

    > that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
    > vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
    > have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.


    Thats a stupid way to do it.

    > So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
    > lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to
    > say that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
    > machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.


    Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
    the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.

    And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
    movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.

    Plenty of the better cellphones and pda support cat5 and wifi etc now.



  15. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    On Mar 7, 2:02 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive specs,
    > you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system. The better
    > Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.


    no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,
    and Ubuntu is not a 'system', just a distro derived from Debian. not
    to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux systems
    like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the fact that
    XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented, which is not a
    native Windows protocol to begin with (although MS tried to
    appropriate and modify it)

    > And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.
    >
    > > other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
    > > unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,

    >
    > Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
    > obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
    > drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.


    which has precious little to do with Windows

    > > and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
    > > that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
    > > filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,

    >
    > By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.


    that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...

    > > that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
    > > vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
    > > have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.

    >
    > Thats a stupid way to do it.


    Really? Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster*
    with Wine or Crossover? Probably not... Besides, if that is the
    "stupid" way to do it, you could make millions telling people what
    that 'smart' way is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free
    box, LOL!

    > > So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
    > > lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to
    > > say that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
    > > machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.

    >
    > Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
    > the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.


    Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is
    doable. But why would anyone in his right mind use such a
    pathetically outdated and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling
    filesystems have been standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!

    > And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
    > movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.


    oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right? And that
    proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT
    world?

    Seen a mirror lately?


  16. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> vees wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote


    >>>> Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.


    >>>> You havent even established that the OP
    >>>> needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.


    >>> well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
    >>> PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))


    >> Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive
    >> specs, you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system.


    >> The better Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.


    > no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,


    Wrong, plenty dont mount it auto like XP does.

    > and Ubuntu is not a 'system',


    It is in the sense that its an operating system.

    > just a distro derived from Debian.


    Still an operating system.

    > not to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux
    > systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the
    > fact that XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented,


    Wrong when the device is happy to appear as a USB drive,
    and the vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.

    > which is not a native Windows protocol to begin
    > with (although MS tried to appropriate and modify it)


    Never said a word about it being that being a native Windows protocol.

    >> And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.


    >>> other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
    >>> unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,


    >> Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
    >> obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
    >> drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.


    > which has precious little to do with Windows


    Everything to with what was being discussed, how to
    COMMUNICATE with that device from Windows or Linux.

    >>> and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
    >>> that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
    >>> filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,


    >> By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.


    > that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...


    Native Windows is irrelevant, what matters is what is trivial to add to that.

    >>> that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
    >>> vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
    >>> have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.


    >> Thats a stupid way to do it.


    > Really?


    Yep.

    > Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster* with Wine or Crossover?


    Irrelevant when you have enough of a clue to not
    bother with a Win app when the system is running Linux.

    > Probably not... Besides, if that is the "stupid" way to do it,
    > you could make millions telling people what that 'smart' way
    > is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free box, LOL!


    You dont need to bother with the win32 APIs if you just want
    to communicate with the device that is being used as a reader.

    >>> So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
    >>> lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to say
    >>> that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
    >>> machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.


    >> Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
    >> the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.


    > Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is doable.
    > But why would anyone in his right mind use such a pathetically outdated
    > and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling filesystems have been
    > standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!


    Because that format allows effortless communication with
    both Win and Linux systems. You dont need anything fancy
    filesystem wise with a reader for text, html and pdf files.

    >> And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
    >> movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.


    > oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right?


    Nope, just that that allows effortless communication with Win and Linux systems.

    > And that proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT world?


    Never ever said a word about that, bigot boy.

    > Seen a mirror lately?


    Pathetic.



  17. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    On Mar 7, 9:05 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > vees wrote
    >
    > > Rod Speed wrote
    > >> vees wrote
    > >>> Rod Speed wrote
    > >>>> Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.
    > >>>> You havent even established that the OP
    > >>>> needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.
    > >>> well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
    > >>> PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))
    > >> Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive
    > >> specs, you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system.
    > >> The better Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.

    > > no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,

    >
    > Wrong, plenty dont mount it auto like XP does.
    >
    > > and Ubuntu is not a 'system',

    >
    > It is in the sense that its an operating system.


    nope. the OS is called GNU. the kernel Linux. Debian is a distro and
    Ubuntu is a derived distro

    > > just a distro derived from Debian.

    >
    > Still an operating system.


    still clueless? oh my...

    > > not to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux
    > > systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the
    > > fact that XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented,

    >
    > Wrong when the device is happy to appear as a USB drive,
    > and the vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.
    >
    > > which is not a native Windows protocol to begin
    > > with (although MS tried to appropriate and modify it)

    >
    > Never said a word about it being that being a native Windows protocol.


    indeed you did not. you just said that Windoze can do it, which sure
    does not imply that it needs a non-native SMB, provided by the free
    box I would add

    > >> And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.
    > >>> other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
    > >>> unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,
    > >> Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
    > >> obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
    > >> drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.

    > > which has precious little to do with Windows

    >
    > Everything to with what was being discussed, how to
    > COMMUNICATE with that device from Windows or Linux.


    well, since you failed to show in any way how Windows could
    communicate with anything without being helped to do so with the said
    anything - you look like a total idiot now :-))

    > >>> and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
    > >>> that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
    > >>> filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,
    > >> By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.

    > > that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...

    >
    > Native Windows is irrelevant, what matters is what is trivial to add to that.


    I agree that Windows is irrelevant. and adding anything to that piece
    of **** does not make it better in any way

    > >>> that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
    > >>> vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
    > >>> have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.
    > >> Thats a stupid way to do it.

    > > Really?

    >
    > Yep.


    if you say so

    > > Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster* with Wine or Crossover?

    >
    > Irrelevant when you have enough of a clue to not
    > bother with a Win app when the system is running Linux.


    in fact I do not do that as proprietary bloatware sucks anyway. but
    should one choose to do that you can get better results in a solid OS
    like GNU or *BSD which the original Windows cannot even dream of
    achieving

    > > Probably not... Besides, if that is the "stupid" way to do it,
    > > you could make millions telling people what that 'smart' way
    > > is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free box, LOL!

    >
    > You dont need to bother with the win32 APIs if you just want
    > to communicate with the device that is being used as a reader.


    you are somewhat logically challenged dude. The emulator would be
    used to make some friggin proprietary bloatware run to communicate
    with a piece of hardware by using the win32 app shipped with it. what
    the device does matters little here. try reading this 3-4 times,
    slowly, you might get it

    > >>> So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
    > >>> lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to say
    > >>> that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
    > >>> machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.
    > >> Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
    > >> the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.

    > > Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is doable.
    > > But why would anyone in his right mind use such a pathetically outdated
    > > and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling filesystems have been
    > > standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!

    >
    > Because that format allows effortless communication with
    > both Win and Linux systems. You dont need anything fancy
    > filesystem wise with a reader for text, html and pdf files.


    nope. wrong again. a filesystem has precious little to do with any
    communications protocol. FAT32 is a filesystem (albeit a crappy one),
    SMB is a protocol. They do not depend on each other in any way.
    Windows boxes cannot mount ReiserFS or Ext3 regardless of the
    protocol. nor can they mount a FAT32 partition on a free box if their
    toolbox of protocols does not make it possible. So using SMB - which
    is NOT Windows - only shows that BSD and GNU hackers did a great job
    creating a samba, not that Windows retards have boxes which can
    communicate with the rest of the world.

    > >> And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
    > >> movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.

    > > oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right?

    >
    > Nope, just that that allows effortless communication with Win and Linux systems.


    well, if you admit your ideas are stupid there is progress here ;-)

    > > And that proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT world?

    >
    > Never ever said a word about that, bigot boy.


    you might want to re-read the entire exchange before making yourself
    look even more stupid

    > > Seen a mirror lately?

    >
    > Pathetic.


    so you looked! great. self-awareness is the first step to recovery.
    and maybe getting facts straight

    [oh boy - I just came across this: http://groups.google.com/group/aus.c...cb179032d8d6ff

    no wonder I am wasting my breath on this clueless lamer...]


  18. Re: advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader

    vees wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> vees wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>> vees wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed wrote


    >>>>>> Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.


    >>>>>> You havent even established that the OP
    >>>>>> needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.


    >>>>> well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
    >>>>> PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))


    >>>> Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive
    >>>> specs, you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system.


    >>>> The better Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.


    >>> no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,


    >> Wrong, plenty dont mount it auto like XP does.


    >>> and Ubuntu is not a 'system',


    >> It is in the sense that its an operating system.


    > nope.


    Yep.

    > the OS is called GNU. the kernel Linux.
    > Debian is a distro and Ubuntu is a derived distro


    Its STILL an operating system.

    >>> just a distro derived from Debian.


    >> Still an operating system.


    > still clueless? oh my...


    Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.

    >>> not to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux
    >>> systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the
    >>> fact that XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented,


    >> Wrong when the device is happy to appear as a USB drive,
    >> and the vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.


    >>> which is not a native Windows protocol to begin
    >>> with (although MS tried to appropriate and modify it)


    >> Never said a word about it being that being a native Windows protocol.


    > indeed you did not. you just said that Windoze can do it, which sure does not
    > imply that it needs a non-native SMB, provided by the free box I would add


    God knows what this silly **** is about, presumably just another juvenile smokescreen.

    >>>> And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.


    >>>>> other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
    >>>>> unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,


    >>>> Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
    >>>> obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
    >>>> drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.


    >>> which has precious little to do with Windows


    >> Everything to with what was being discussed, how to
    >> COMMUNICATE with that device from Windows or Linux.


    > well, since you failed to show in any way how Windows could communicate
    > with anything without being helped to do so with the said anything


    Doesnt need any help IF THE DEVICE APPEARS TO BE A USB DRIVE,
    as the absolute vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.

    > - you look like a total idiot now :-))


    Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.

    >>>>> and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
    >>>>> that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
    >>>>> filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,


    >>>> By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.


    >>> that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...


    >> Native Windows is irrelevant, what matters is what is trivial to add to that.


    > I agree that Windows is irrelevant. and adding anything
    > to that piece of **** does not make it better in any way


    Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot boy.

    >>>>> that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that
    >>>>> the vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
    >>>>> have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.


    >>>> Thats a stupid way to do it.


    >>> Really?


    >> Yep.


    > if you say so


    Pathetic.

    >>> Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster* with Wine or Crossover?


    >> Irrelevant when you have enough of a clue to not
    >> bother with a Win app when the system is running Linux.


    > in fact I do not do that as proprietary bloatware sucks anyway. but should
    > one choose to do that you can get better results in a solid OS like GNU or
    > *BSD which the original Windows cannot even dream of achieving


    Win handles viewers which appear as a USB drive fine, bigot child.

    >>> Probably not... Besides, if that is the "stupid" way to do it,
    >>> you could make millions telling people what that 'smart' way
    >>> is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free box, LOL!


    >> You dont need to bother with the win32 APIs if you just want
    >> to communicate with the device that is being used as a reader.


    > you are somewhat logically challenged dude.


    You couldnt bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag, dud.

    > The emulator would be used to make some friggin proprietary bloatware


    You dont need anything proprietary when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.

    > run to communicate with a piece of hardware by using the win32 app shipped with it.


    You dont need any win32 apps shipped with it when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.

    > what the device does matters little here.


    Wrong when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.

    > try reading this 3-4 times, slowly, you might get it


    Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot child.

    >>>>> So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
    >>>>> lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to say
    >>>>> that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
    >>>>> machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.


    >>>> Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
    >>>> the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.


    >>> Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is doable.
    >>> But why would anyone in his right mind use such a pathetically outdated
    >>> and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling filesystems have been
    >>> standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!


    >> Because that format allows effortless communication with
    >> both Win and Linux systems. You dont need anything fancy
    >> filesystem wise with a reader for text, html and pdf files.


    > nope. wrong again.


    We'll see...

    > a filesystem has precious little to do with any communications protocol.


    Wrong when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.

    > FAT32 is a filesystem (albeit a crappy one), SMB is a protocol.


    Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.

    > They do not depend on each other in any way.


    Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.

    > Windows boxes cannot mount ReiserFS or Ext3 regardless of the protocol.


    Only a fool would format a viewer in either format, bigot child.

    > nor can they mount a FAT32 partition on a free box if
    > their toolbox of protocols does not make it possible.


    Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.

    > So using SMB - which is NOT Windows


    Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.

    > - only shows that BSD and GNU hackers did a great
    > job creating a samba, not that Windows retards have
    > boxes which can communicate with the rest of the world.


    Irrelevant to what makes sense with a viewer, bigot child.

    >>>> And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
    >>>> movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.


    >>> oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right?


    >> Nope, just that that allows effortless communication with Win and Linux systems.


    > well, if you admit your ideas are stupid there is progress here ;-)


    Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot child.

    >>> And that proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT world?


    >> Never ever said a word about that, bigot boy.


    > you might want to re-read the entire exchange


    No point, your juvenile **** stays juvenile **** no matter how often its reread.

    > before making yourself look even more stupid


    Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot child.

    >>> Seen a mirror lately?


    >> Pathetic.






+ Reply to Thread