🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29 Apr 1998 13:23:56 GMT, nguyen@netspace.net.au (Jim Nguyen)
wrote:

> Yes I know. I use IBrowse on the Amiga. Unfortunately I wasn't satisfied 
> with it's security features because I do a lot of credit card 
> transactions over the net so *sigh* I bought a wintel box to use Netrape 
> and Microsloth Exploder. I still don't like Windoze. 

 You might want to check out the Amiga port of Linux.  Saves you
buying an intel box anyway :)

[those like myself who can't afford the latest-and-greatest]
> Well my heart bleeds for them but what do you want to do? I know! Maybe we 
> all can write to Intel, Motorola, Sun, Digital, Microsoft, Apple etc... and 
> ask them to STOP any research that might lead to better and faster 
> processors and OS technologies so everybody can catch up? 

 Heheh... well the processors are certainly getting better and faster,
but I don't think the same applies to MS bloatware :)  In fact, I
don't even see what's so fantastic about Intel processors.  The whole
architecture is screwed right from the start.

 Dear Intel,  you've turned my PC into an oven.  No longer do I need
to run a heater as my computer now keeps my feet toasty warm while I
browse the 'net.

> That's a noble cause but the implementation is another story. I'm not 
> saying that you shouldn't be on the net because you got a crap box. If 
> you want the net then you get it the way your machine delivers it. If you 
> miss out on a few things then thats too bad. If can't view www gfx then 
> you'll have to settle for lynx. If you've got no ppp you settle for a 
> terminal screen. Technology waits for no one.

 That's all very well, but the web page (to use your example) has to
actually work on the "alternative" browsers, and that's very important
for reference or commercial sites (as Lin pointed out very well in her
post).  It's not my fault for using my old version of Lynx if someones
page throws out noframes or messes up on non-graphical browsers.

[bloatware]
> Probably not but when you have huge hd and plenty of memory who cares?

 Tell me, what is it that's forced you to put such a huge hd and so
much memory in your pc in the first place :)  It's a question of
efficiency.  My linux machine is a dx4-100 and runs a web server, ftp
server, file/print server, dial-on-demand and gateway/proxy/routing
services, web cache and shell access and lots more.  It's got 16Mb of
ram and only ever hits the swap space if I run a few X apps (notably
netscape v3.01) or compile a kernel.  To offer the same services on NT
(if possible) would be a nightmare on such a machine.  In fact, the
only reason that machine isn't still an sx/33 with 8Mb is because I
didn't like waiting an hour for a kernel to compile :)

> That's technological progress for you. You keep up or 
> you get left behind. 

 I find that attitude funny (sorry) :)  I see it this way:  You fork
out thousands to be kept behind by the MS-Intel conspiracy, or you
find a more [cost|time] efficient way to get your work/play done.

 I shudder to think about what kind of hardware we'll be using 10
years from now though :)  "I can't believe I spent $1500 on a PII
chip!" :)

- Dave (pooky a@t caverock d.t net d.t nz)

"And you can dream, so dream out loud
 You know that your time is coming 'round
 So don't let the bastards grind you down" - U2 "Acrobat"