Newer thinking about computers has arrived ( GOOGLE'S CHROME) - Slackware

This is a discussion on Newer thinking about computers has arrived ( GOOGLE'S CHROME) - Slackware ; Responding to Mark Madsen: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:45:56 +0000, Mike wrote: > >>> Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\ >> >> A combination of a decent search engine and time could fix that. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Newer thinking about computers has arrived ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

  1. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Responding to Mark Madsen:

    > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:45:56 +0000, Mike wrote:
    >
    >>> Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\

    >>
    >> A combination of a decent search engine and time could fix that.

    >
    > Just start with here and move on through the links:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uucp
    >
    > I would respectfully suggest that the continuing discussion is so far OT
    > that it be taken to mail or to an appropriate group. (Does anyone know
    > if alt.os.linux.nostalgia exists?)



    Not a bad suggestion, but we're discussing possible /future/ matters.

    alt.linux might be a more suitable general area?

    But I think we've just about exhausted the thread anyhoo.

    There's reading and planning to do!

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  2. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    followup-to set to alt.linux
    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Mark Madsen:
    >
    >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:45:56 +0000, Mike wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\
    >>>
    >>> A combination of a decent search engine and time could fix that.

    >>
    >> Just start with here and move on through the links:
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uucp
    >>
    >> I would respectfully suggest that the continuing discussion is so far OT
    >> that it be taken to mail or to an appropriate group. (Does anyone know
    >> if alt.os.linux.nostalgia exists?)

    >
    >
    > Not a bad suggestion, but we're discussing possible /future/ matters.
    >
    > alt.linux might be a more suitable general area?
    >
    > But I think we've just about exhausted the thread anyhoo.
    >
    > There's reading and planning to do!


    Yes indeed. Alt.linux looks fine by me.

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  3. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Mike wrote:

    You can reach me at gee mail at the most obvious
    of addresses.

    [delete]

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  4. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Mark Madsen:
    >
    >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:45:56 +0000, Mike wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Now if only I actually knew how UUCP works. :\
    >>>
    >>> A combination of a decent search engine and time could fix that.

    >>
    >> Just start with here and move on through the links:
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uucp
    >>
    >> I would respectfully suggest that the continuing discussion is so far OT
    >> that it be taken to mail or to an appropriate group. (Does anyone know
    >> if alt.os.linux.nostalgia exists?)

    >
    >
    > Not a bad suggestion, but we're discussing possible /future/ matters.
    >
    > alt.linux might be a more suitable general area?
    >
    > But I think we've just about exhausted the thread anyhoo.
    >
    > There's reading and planning to do!
    >
    > --
    > *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    > *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    > *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/


    Should you decide not to chicken out while hiding behind a
    juvenile mask of mockery, I figure that the zenwalk core edition
    would be a good starting point (assuming that it has no X at all,
    which I am thinking is the case, despite the ambiguous wording).

    http://www.zenwalk.org/modules/tinyc...ndex.php?id=32

    Also, I've verified that using cellphones for modem connections
    to ISPs and other computers is pretty common these days:

    http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/...Phone_Internet


    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  5. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    [...]
    >>
    >> There's reading and planning to do!
    >>


    >
    > Should you decide not to chicken out while hiding behind a juvenile mask
    > of mockery, I figure that the zenwalk core edition would be a good
    > starting point (assuming that it has no X at all, which I am thinking is
    > the case, despite the ambiguous wording).
    >
    > http://www.zenwalk.org/modules/tinyc...ndex.php?id=32
    >
    > Also, I've verified that using cellphones for modem connections to ISPs
    > and other computers is pretty common these days:
    >
    > http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/answers/Networking/

    Verizon_Cell_Phone_Internet
    >



    Chicken out? What am I getting myself into here?

    And whats wrong with juvenile mockery?



    The Zenwalk core edition is indeed a "bare bones" installation, though
    not in the sense LFS or CRUX is. Could be a useful starting platform to
    play about with a few ideas on, but eventually a project like the one
    that seems to be appearing here would need some serious work done on it's
    kernel, stripping it back, building in whatever turned out to be
    "standard" functions, and so on. (Monolithic including apps, and on-chip?)

    Anyhoo...

    For the moment, I want to search around and read up on some of the ideas
    outlines so far. When I get something (possibly) worth chewing on I'll
    post something to alt.linux with RetroNet in the subject line.

    T'would be nice if anyone else with an interest in the ideas we've
    covered picked up on this too.

    See ya later.

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  6. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >
    > [...]
    >>>
    >>> There's reading and planning to do!
    >>>

    >
    >>
    >> Should you decide not to chicken out while hiding behind a juvenile mask
    >> of mockery, I figure that the zenwalk core edition would be a good
    >> starting point (assuming that it has no X at all, which I am thinking is
    >> the case, despite the ambiguous wording).
    >>
    >> http://www.zenwalk.org/modules/tinyc...ndex.php?id=32
    >>
    >> Also, I've verified that using cellphones for modem connections to ISPs
    >> and other computers is pretty common these days:
    >>
    >> http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/answers/Networking/

    > Verizon_Cell_Phone_Internet
    >>

    >
    >
    > Chicken out? What am I getting myself into here?
    >
    > And whats wrong with juvenile mockery?


    Thou art incorrigible.

    >
    >
    >
    > The Zenwalk core edition is indeed a "bare bones" installation, though
    > not in the sense LFS or CRUX is. Could be a useful starting platform to
    > play about with a few ideas on, but eventually a project like the one
    > that seems to be appearing here would need some serious work done on it's
    > kernel, stripping it back, building in whatever turned out to be
    > "standard" functions, and so on. (Monolithic including apps, and on-chip?)


    Stripping the kernel down is something I can handle. Done it many times.

    >
    > Anyhoo...
    >
    > For the moment, I want to search around and read up on some of the ideas
    > outlines so far. When I get something (possibly) worth chewing on I'll
    > post something to alt.linux with RetroNet in the subject line.
    >
    > T'would be nice if anyone else with an interest in the ideas we've
    > covered picked up on this too.
    >
    > See ya later.


    That would be fine.

    UUCP is looking to be a good fit, which I guess shouldn't surprise me,
    but I'm still just beginning to get a handle on it.

    >
    > --
    > *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    > *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    > *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/


    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  7. Re: [OT] The Retronet was: Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >
    > You are way behind. We are now talking about using the cellular telephone
    > network.
    >

    I thought the idea was to avoid the "evil" corporations. And just how
    long do you think it would take for the cell phone companies to take
    your "retronet" over if it were to become useful?

    Jerry

  8. Re: [OT] The Retronet was: Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Jerry Peters wrote:
    > Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >>
    >> You are way behind. We are now talking about using the cellular telephone
    >> network.
    >>

    > I thought the idea was to avoid the "evil" corporations. And just how
    > long do you think it would take for the cell phone companies to take
    > your "retronet" over if it were to become useful?
    >
    > Jerry


    No way to avoid the 'evil corporations'. They make all the hardware.
    The idea is to avoid them as much as possible.

    There's no way they could take something like the retronet over
    because it would be decentralized and amateur.

    What are they going to do? Tell people that they can't transfer
    data over cellphones in order to stop it? I don't think so. They
    are working in the opposite direction, to make it easier to use
    the cellphone network to transfer data because the public wants
    to use their cellphones to access the internet.

    Good point, though.

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  9. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    [...]
    >>
    >> And whats wrong with juvenile mockery?

    >
    > Thou art incorrigible.
    >


    Yay, verily.


    (Back to my A4 sketchpad.


    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  10. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >
    > [...]
    >>>
    >>> And whats wrong with juvenile mockery?

    >>
    >> Thou art incorrigible.
    >>

    >
    > Yay, verily.
    >


    chortle

    >
    > (Back to my A4 sketchpad.


    I've downloaded the UUCP package for Slack.
    It's a megabyte uncompressed, with all sorts
    of stuff that wouldn't be necessary at all.
    Reading the man and info pages and following
    links from the wikipedia page.

    Why reinvent the wheel?

    On the other hand, it looks like it would be possible
    to write a simplified shell script version for sh
    and netcat(nc). This would be very, very fast and
    quite small.

    By-the-way, I don't think you went far enough with
    your idea of a stripped down kernel.

    I think this could be done with Slackware 1.0.
    Easily

    >
    >
    > --
    > *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    > *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    > *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/


    Later,

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  11. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Responding to Sidney Lambe:

    [...]
    >
    > I've downloaded the UUCP package for Slack. It's a megabyte
    > uncompressed, with all sorts of stuff that wouldn't be necessary at all.
    > Reading the man and info pages and following links from the wikipedia
    > page.
    >
    > Why reinvent the wheel?
    >
    > On the other hand, it looks like it would be possible to write a
    > simplified shell script version for sh and netcat(nc). This would be
    > very, very fast and quite small.
    >
    > By-the-way, I don't think you went far enough with your idea of a
    > stripped down kernel.
    >
    > I think this could be done with Slackware 1.0. Easily
    >


    The options ATM are many. I also think that, despite your impressions,
    you're likely to get some if this nailed down before I do. However, I
    will keep on with this, simply because I'm intrigued enough to want to
    know where it can lead. If it turns into something worth hotwiring a
    mobile phone (or something) for, all the better.


    Suggest alt.linux for further posts. (?)

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  12. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Sidney Lambe:
    >
    > [...]
    >>
    >> I've downloaded the UUCP package for Slack. It's a megabyte
    >> uncompressed, with all sorts of stuff that wouldn't be necessary at all.
    >> Reading the man and info pages and following links from the wikipedia
    >> page.
    >>
    >> Why reinvent the wheel?
    >>
    >> On the other hand, it looks like it would be possible to write a
    >> simplified shell script version for sh and netcat(nc). This would be
    >> very, very fast and quite small.
    >>
    >> By-the-way, I don't think you went far enough with your idea of a
    >> stripped down kernel.
    >>
    >> I think this could be done with Slackware 1.0. Easily
    >>

    >
    > The options ATM are many. I also think that, despite your impressions,
    > you're likely to get some if this nailed down before I do. However, I
    > will keep on with this, simply because I'm intrigued enough to want to
    > know where it can lead. If it turns into something worth hotwiring a
    > mobile phone (or something) for, all the better.


    Good to hear.

    >
    >
    > Suggest alt.linux for further posts. (?)


    Agreed.

    Sid

    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

  13. Re: [OT] The Retronet was: Re: Newer thinking ( GOOGLE'S CHROME)

    Sidney Lambe wrote:
    > Jerry Peters wrote:
    >> Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >>>
    >>> You are way behind. We are now talking about using the cellular telephone
    >>> network.
    >>>

    >> I thought the idea was to avoid the "evil" corporations. And just how
    >> long do you think it would take for the cell phone companies to take
    >> your "retronet" over if it were to become useful?
    >>
    >> Jerry

    >
    > No way to avoid the 'evil corporations'. They make all the hardware.
    > The idea is to avoid them as much as possible.
    >
    > There's no way they could take something like the retronet over
    > because it would be decentralized and amateur.
    >
    > What are they going to do? Tell people that they can't transfer
    > data over cellphones in order to stop it? I don't think so. They
    > are working in the opposite direction, to make it easier to use
    > the cellphone network to transfer data because the public wants
    > to use their cellphones to access the internet.
    >
    > Good point, though.
    >
    > Sid
    >

    Something like deep packet inspection, perhaps?

    Jerry

  14. Re: [OT] The Retronet

    #Followup-To: alt.linux
    Jerry Peters wrote:
    > Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >> Jerry Peters wrote:
    >>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> You are way behind. We are now talking about using the cellular telephone
    >>>> network.
    >>>>
    >>> I thought the idea was to avoid the "evil" corporations. And just how
    >>> long do you think it would take for the cell phone companies to take
    >>> your "retronet" over if it were to become useful?
    >>>
    >>> Jerry

    >>
    >> No way to avoid the 'evil corporations'. They make all the hardware.
    >> The idea is to avoid them as much as possible.
    >>
    >> There's no way they could take something like the retronet over
    >> because it would be decentralized and amateur.
    >>
    >> What are they going to do? Tell people that they can't transfer
    >> data over cellphones in order to stop it? I don't think so. They
    >> are working in the opposite direction, to make it easier to use
    >> the cellphone network to transfer data because the public wants
    >> to use their cellphones to access the internet.
    >>
    >> Good point, though.
    >>
    >> Sid
    >>

    > Something like deep packet inspection, perhaps?
    >


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

    That's a good heads up. But remember, we aren't talking
    about a network in the usual sense of the word. They'd get
    two people/phones exchanging data, that's all.

    Just sending files to each other. That's where my thinking is
    now. No standard protocols. Just simple file transfer with
    destination info tucked in the file somewhere in a code that
    could be changed regularly.

    Dial into to someone running a 'mail server' and send a text file
    with a line at the bottom that read simply "xx43dave smith". The
    file would go to dave smith's unread mail directory on that 'mail
    server'

    When dave smith dialed into the 'mail server', the files in that
    directory would be transferred to his machine. Probably as a
    tarball.

    Compressed, of course, in both directions. Maybe encrypted.

    For 'web servers', it would be mostly downloading and the files
    would be html and images. There could easily be simple scripts
    devised that could replace html tags with other strings so
    that it wouldn't even seem to be html. The images could be
    in a seperate file.

    For 'news server' (forums), it would be just like the 'mail server'
    basically. Different 'header' and multiple 'mailboxes' to check/post
    to,, that's all.

    The key would be non-standardization (and/or unpredicatably
    changing standardization) as well as decentralization.
    Different servers could have different standards, communicated

    Thanks for making me think. Please follow us to alt.linux to
    continue this discussion.

    Sid


    --
    My newsfilter kills all threads and subthreads
    originating with a post from googlegroups.
    See: http://tinyurl.com/5n3vt6

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4