"NT" wrote in message
...


Linux has its issues, so does windows. Playing some video content
under recent versions of win is a nightmare,

Which videos are those?

"Gib Bogle" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I wrote my first FORTRAN program in primary school.
Square roots by successive approximation not "hello world".
It was run on a cdc machine (IIRC) at Imperial college after sending the
cards in the post.
That would be sometime around 1966.
I still remember the porta punches we had to use.

Primary school? Gee. My first foray into programming (with FORTRAN IV, of
course) was about the same time - but I was in my first year of
university.

We had a new teacher that was into computers, he was building one using
transistors to make flipflops, etc.
I did a bit of soldering on that project but I never saw it work.

T i m wrote:

Because the main printer here (a Canon ip4000) happens to hang off the
back of this Mac Mini / XP. I do have a ip5200r (network printer) that
I had to buy to be able to print from OSX but the carts aren't as
cheap as they are on this ip4000. I was considering plugging theip4000
into the WHS but could well have the same issues with OSX / Linux
(Linux has printed to it previously so there may be other issues. Mrs
can and does print to it all the time from her XP box).

OSX uses CUPS. so it may be possible to share it that way.


I can't even use XP under VirtualBox because I
can't get it to see the USB devices. ;-(

Download the proper version from Sun.

Is that also free?

Yes.

The open source doesn't have USB
enabled.

It suggests it does?

It doesn't. I checked all this for someone else with Debian maintainer
of it. distros use OSS version, the real McCoy comes from Sun, but the
source is not available.

Yes. But these things can be tackled slowly and carefully. Its not a
reason to not use the stuff.

Indeed and why I've been dabbling with Linux since I installed it from
3 floppies. Whilst it's now getting very close to being useable (and
is useable as is for many of course), I need a complete solution and
have no axe to grind against Windows. I have installed Ubuntu as a
dual boot solution for a few friends and family they still need
Windows to do some stuff. So, they could live without Linux but
couldn't live without Windows. If I said thy could only keep one,
needs rather than choice would determine the outcome.

That's my experience, which is why I have VirtualBox.

It makes windows an occasional experience for a specific purpose, not
something I have to live with in all its insecurity. AND courtesy of
virtaul screens, I have it at the touch of a mouse and 2GB of RAM..




-)

Point accepted. Despite having used *nix for years, I never wanted it on
my desktop, until really I got fed up with windows and decided to take
the plunge.

Understood. As much as I can be frustrated by Windows at times
(generally only Vista) I don't generally have any problems with it.
The first time I had anything funny happen (and it's on most the day
every day) is yesterday when I plugged an external DVDRW (because the
built in drive on this Mini isn't a DVDRW and would cost a fortune to
upgrade) and it killed the box dead (I think the USB socket is worn
and it could have shorted summat). Switched it off (stupid button
round the back) and back on again and XP was fine.

The fact that its taken me about 2 years to get to 90% of
what I want, with a few issues I can live with, is the downside...

OK.

Linux
is not as plug and play as one could like,

However I'd say it's better than Windows / OSX in many cases, it's
just when it doesn't work (on it's own) you could be in trouble (well,
most people would).

and, indeed, making it that
way is to an extent destroying some of what makes it good.

Good for me is no more than 'working' and being reliable.
However, it keeps on getting better.

For sure and why I'm still (after all these years) wasting time (as
the Mrs sees it) on Linux.
And I have to say, going back to windows feels like a backward step
these days.

I've not felt that yet. There are some things that I'm reminded of,
like the start up speed, however as I generally turn my PC on once a
day it's not really an issue.
I tried OS-X and Mac, but the cost..the cost..everything costs, and
there is almost no free software.

And the acceptance of that ethic seems to be ingrained in those who
follow the Brand. 'We know it costs more but it's better ..." (when it
often isn't).


Indeed.

And when it breaks, it breaks badly -
beyond repair sometimes.

Yup, the fact that you can't build_your_own and cant buy spares as
easily and cheaply as you can with PC's is mostly why I never got into
Macs in the first place. I'm petrified this Mini might die one day and
whilst I'm happy I have a rsestorable backup on th WHS I'm not sure it
would work on this Mini. I will replace it with something more PC
based when I get round to it.

Saying that I have about 8 Macs ranging from an SE, PB170 to a C2D
Mini (and this solo). There are some things I've only been able to do
on OSX but it turns out they aren't things I need regularly and
because it only (officially) runs on Apple hardware it doesn't get
fired up very often. If it did run on non Apple hardware I would
happily have a copy on a partition just for the crack.


Wife wont have anything else. Life's too short. Luckily its pretty
stable now and I don't have to fix it.


Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 08 May 2010 13:06:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Because the main printer here (a Canon ip4000) happens to hang off the
back of this Mac Mini / XP. I do have a ip5200r (network printer) that
I had to buy to be able to print from OSX but the carts aren't as
cheap as they are on this ip4000. I was considering plugging theip4000
into the WHS but could well have the same issues with OSX / Linux
(Linux has printed to it previously so there may be other issues. Mrs
can and does print to it all the time from her XP box).

OSX uses CUPS. so it may be possible to share it that way.

I tried everything.


I can't even use XP under VirtualBox because I
can't get it to see the USB devices. ;-(

Download the proper version from Sun.

Is that also free?

Yes.

Checks About Oracle VM, 3.2.0 Beta.

Is that not the badger?

FWIW I've just installed said VB under Mint9 and when starting an
install of XPVM it says:

"Could not access USB on the host system, because neither the USB file
system (usbfs) nor the DBus and hal services are currently available.
If you wish to use host USB devices inside guest systems you must
correct this and restart VirtualBox.

The USB Proxy service could not be started because the USB file system
(usbfs) is not available."

?

The open source doesn't have USB
enabled.

It suggests it does?

It doesn't. I checked all this for someone else with Debian maintainer
of it.

I pulled this straight off their site and it looks like it's willing
to support USB if the subsystems are in place on the host?

distros use OSS version, the real McCoy comes from Sun, but the
source is not available.

Ok (not sure what that means (to me) though).


That's my experience, which is why I have VirtualBox.

It makes windows an occasional experience for a specific purpose, not
something I have to live with in all its insecurity. AND courtesy of
virtaul screens, I have it at the touch of a mouse and 2GB of RAM..

Yup, seems like a good idea. However, most things *I* might need it
for require USB access ...




Saying that I have about 8 Macs ranging from an SE, PB170 to a C2D
Mini (and this solo). There are some things I've only been able to do
on OSX but it turns out they aren't things I need regularly and
because it only (officially) runs on Apple hardware it doesn't get
fired up very often. If it did run on non Apple hardware I would
happily have a copy on a partition just for the crack.


Wife wont have anything else. Life's too short. Luckily its pretty
stable now and I don't have to fix it.

The Mrs used a Mac at work for 14 years and a PC at home. She comes
in, turns her PC on and uses it as a terminal (banking), media centre
(CD's, DVD's, Live and recorded TV), games, email and IM (and WHS
backs it up when it's on a lunchtime). I can't remember the last time
I had to do anything to it. It cost little and would cost similar to
fix / upgrade. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:22:24 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-08, Gib Bogle wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.

Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.

Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for people
with weak memories.

I always think C is too stromgly typed...!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:22:24 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-08, Gib wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.

Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.

Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for people
with weak memories.

I always think C is too stromgly typed...!

Make all variables void* only cast to other types to increment them ;-)

On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:04:57 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:22:24 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-08, Gib wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.

Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.

Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for
people with weak memories.

I always think C is too stromgly typed...!

Make all variables void* only cast to other types to increment them ;-)

Or just use BCPL....remmeber BCPL?

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Huge wrote:
On 2010-05-08, Gib Bogle wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.
Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.

Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for
people with weak memories.

weakly typed languages are for people who don't program real machines
with physical RAM and word size limitations:-).

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:22:24 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-08, Gib Bogle wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.
Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.
Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for people
with weak memories.

I always think C is too stromgly typed...!

No, its just right, with enough get out of jail constructs to work
around the issues.

So 0x31 isn't held to be equal to 0x01 accidentally.

Bob Eager wrote:

Or just use BCPL....remmeber BCPL?

Only from the BBC Micro, and only fleetingly.

On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:29:44 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

Or just use BCPL....remmeber BCPL?

Only from the BBC Micro, and only fleetingly.

I started using it a lot earlier...BBC BCPL was developed by the brother
of the language 'inventor'.

Completely typeless!



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:31:12 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-08, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:29:44 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

Or just use BCPL....remmeber BCPL?

Only from the BBC Micro, and only fleetingly.

I started using it a lot earlier...BBC BCPL was developed by the
brother of the language 'inventor'.

Completely typeless!

Given that I have probably written more code in PDP11 assembler than in
any other language (*), what's the problem with that?

Nothing at all. In fact, I wrote a BCPL compiler for the PDP-11...!

I've spent the last year supervising a project on writing a PDP-11
simulator - so I really had to know the architecture...OTOH I have the
PDP-11 downstairs (at home) - if it worked..!
)

(* Which goes to show how long it is since I actually cut code for a
living.)





--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:50:33 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Nothing at all. In fact, I wrote a BCPL compiler for the PDP-11...!

When was this? I wrote a Z80 cross-assembler for the IBM 370 in BCPL in
1980, unfortunately I no longer have the source.

A bit before that...around 1975 I think. We used it to build a terminal
concentrator based on an 11/03. We later moved it to the Z80, using a
compiler based on one written by a student at Cambridge - Ian someone. I
did a lot of work on optimisation, particularly on bitwise operations -
we were short of space on the Z80.

I later put boths compiler onto UNIX, in 1976-77. The PDP-11 one first,
to 'host' the other one..!




--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sat, 08 May 2010 23:02:32 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:50:33 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Nothing at all. In fact, I wrote a BCPL compiler for the PDP-11...!

When was this? I wrote a Z80 cross-assembler for the IBM 370 in BCPL
in 1980, unfortunately I no longer have the source.

A bit before that...around 1975 I think. We used it to build a terminal
concentrator based on an 11/03. We later moved it to the Z80, using a
compiler based on one written by a student at Cambridge - Ian someone.
I did a lot of work on optimisation, particularly on bitwise operations
- we were short of space on the Z80.

I later put boths compiler onto UNIX, in 1976-77. The PDP-11 one first,
to 'host' the other one..!

Did you get into BCPl because of Martin Richards (IIRC he was at
Cambridge). He was in our group at CERN for a year around that time.

I did an MSc at Essex 1973-74. It was in heavy use there. I did a
portable code generator for a 'new' BCPL compiler, for my dissertation. I
met Martin on several occasions.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Huge wrote:
On 2010-05-08, Gib Bogle wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.
Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.

Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for
people with weak memories.


Eh? Python strongly typed? That does not compute.

On 09/05/10 03:48, Gib Bogle wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2010-05-08, Gib Bogle wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.
Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.

Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for
people with weak memories.


Eh? Python strongly typed? That does not compute.

Google's new Go language looks rather interesting:

http://golang.org/




--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Tim Watts wrote:

Google's new Go language looks rather interesting:

http://golang.org/

Seems like syntactic fiddling about ...

Fair enough, some reasonable bits from java/javascript backported to C.

But I *like* semicolons, and I don't like being told where to put my braces.

If you're going to mess with = and := operators, wouldn't it be more
useful to clarify assignment/equality, rather than muddy the water with
combined declaration/assignment?

Channels, what are they? Co-routines disguised as arguments to functions?

When a programmer is bored by new languages, is he bored with life?

Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Google's new Go language looks rather interesting:

http://golang.org/

Seems like syntactic fiddling about ...

Fair enough, some reasonable bits from java/javascript backported to C.

But I *like* semicolons, and I don't like being told where to put my
braces.

If you're going to mess with = and := operators, wouldn't it be more
useful to clarify assignment/equality, rather than muddy the water with
combined declaration/assignment?

Channels, what are they? Co-routines disguised as arguments to functions?

When a programmer is bored by new languages, is he bored with life?

No, he has just grown up.

there are as far as I am concerned only three languages really.


Structured procedural, FORTH and the specialised business oriented ones
like COBOL (which is really structrured procedural) and SQL.

OOP languages are just extensions on structured procedural, whatever
their proponents may say, extensions that often make life harder for
programmers.

On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:26:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are as far as I am concerned only three languages really.


Structured procedural, FORTH and the specialised business oriented ones
like COBOL (which is really structrured procedural) and SQL.

OOP languages are just extensions on structured procedural, whatever
their proponents may say, extensions that often make life harder for
programmers.

Where would you classify (say) Haskell and Prolog?



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:26:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are as far as I am concerned only three languages really.


Structured procedural, FORTH and the specialised business oriented ones
like COBOL (which is really structrured procedural) and SQL.

OOP languages are just extensions on structured procedural, whatever
their proponents may say, extensions that often make life harder for
programmers.

Where would you classify (say) Haskell and Prolog?



Neverwozzas.

Academic interest only. You missed LISP.

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:51:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:26:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are as far as I am concerned only three languages really.


Structured procedural, FORTH and the specialised business oriented
ones like COBOL (which is really structrured procedural) and SQL.

OOP languages are just extensions on structured procedural, whatever
their proponents may say, extensions that often make life harder for
programmers.

Where would you classify (say) Haskell and Prolog?



Neverwozzas.

Academic interest only.

Wrong. But never mind.

You missed LISP.

I missed thousands. I did say 'say'.




--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:51:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:26:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are as far as I am concerned only three languages really.


Structured procedural, FORTH and the specialised business oriented
ones like COBOL (which is really structrured procedural) and SQL.

OOP languages are just extensions on structured procedural, whatever
their proponents may say, extensions that often make life harder for
programmers.
Where would you classify (say) Haskell and Prolog?



Neverwozzas.

Academic interest only.

Wrong. But never mind.

So what major piece of code is written in either?



You missed LISP.

I missed thousands. I did say 'say'.

On Sun, 09 May 2010 16:34:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Where would you classify (say) Haskell and Prolog?

Neverwozzas.

Academic interest only.

Wrong. But never mind.

So what major piece of code is written in either?

Why does it have to be major? It just has to be 'not just of academic
interest'.

OK...Haskell...used by ABN AMRO in investment banking, to measure
counterparty risk on derivative portfolios. Bluespec - who are an ASIC
and FPGA design vendor - develop their products in Haskell. It's also
used by Eaton for the design and verification of hydraulic hybrid vehicle
systems.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Huge wrote:
On 2010-05-09, Gib Bogle wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2010-05-08, Gib Bogle wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

Perl rules.
Perl used to rule. Now Python rules.
Naah. Python has too many rules. Strongly typed languages are for
people with weak memories.

Eh? Python strongly typed? That does not compute.

Oh, you want to a *serious* discussion? )

OK. I know next to nada about Python.

the position of any sane man..


I just wanted to use the joke.

Better still.

In message , Adrian C
writes
On 06/05/2010 19:33, Graeme wrote:

Not a problem. Use one of these connected between that PC and the KVM
switch.

USB TO PS/2 PS2 CABLE MOUSE KEYBOARD CONVERTER ADAPTER

Thanks Adrian. Similar ordered Thursday evening, posted Friday, arrived
Saturday. All for less than a fiver.
--
Graeme

In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 06/05/10 16:00, Graeme wrote:

Words of wisdom will be appreciated :-)

Although it looks confusing to an outsider you shouldn't worry too much
about which version. Ubuntu is the latest mainstream distro to release
a new version and that's as good as any other criterion for choosing.
It helps that it's also a relatively newbie-friendly system. You should
encourage him to try several others in due course.

Excellent, thank you. I will certainly try Mint, as recommended by
Another Dave.

Running Linux in a separate machine is preferable to dual-booting
because that's a bit complicated to fix if it goes pear-shaped.

OK. The machine we're using already has XP installed, and we're running
Ubuntu from the CD. Next step is to partition the hard drive, using
Gparted, but that is new territory. However, should things go wrong,
loss of the XP installation will not matter too much, as there is no
data there.

The other criterion that I might consider using is the availability of
a local expert who would be available to help out.

That, sadly, is what we're lacking. We live in a village, and I'm sure
there must be someone here using Linux, but I have not found him yet.

TBH, I'm still not entirely sure WHY we want to play with Linux, or what
the advantages are - which will probably open the floodgates :-)

Yes, it is running, and we can access the web, and doubtless do other
things, but, apart from the often discussed security implications, why
would we use Linux?
--
Graeme

Graeme wrote:
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 06/05/10 16:00, Graeme wrote:

Words of wisdom will be appreciated :-)

Although it looks confusing to an outsider you shouldn't worry too
much about which version. Ubuntu is the latest mainstream distro to
release a new version and that's as good as any other criterion for
choosing. It helps that it's also a relatively newbie-friendly system.
You should encourage him to try several others in due course.

Excellent, thank you. I will certainly try Mint, as recommended by
Another Dave.

Running Linux in a separate machine is preferable to dual-booting
because that's a bit complicated to fix if it goes pear-shaped.

OK. The machine we're using already has XP installed, and we're running
Ubuntu from the CD. Next step is to partition the hard drive, using
Gparted, but that is new territory. However, should things go wrong,
loss of the XP installation will not matter too much, as there is no
data there.

The other criterion that I might consider using is the availability of
a local expert who would be available to help out.

That, sadly, is what we're lacking. We live in a village, and I'm sure
there must be someone here using Linux, but I have not found him yet.

TBH, I'm still not entirely sure WHY we want to play with Linux, or what
the advantages are - which will probably open the floodgates :-)

Yes, it is running, and we can access the web, and doubtless do other
things, but, apart from the often discussed security implications, why
would we use Linux?
speed, cost, security and a deep seated hatred of Microsoft :-)

In message , Jules Richardson
writes
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:00:59 +0100, Graeme wrote:

The problem. A nine year old son who is *desperate* to download and
play with Ubantu, for reasons unknown.

Find out.

Indeed. I'm not sure that he knows. This post is in danger of
wandering off on a tangent. Son is addicted to his PC and Xbox, and
spends hours fiddling, watching tuition type films on YouTube,
experimenting, and generally poking around, but without any real sense
of purpose. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as he is learning all
the time. I suspect that he has come across references to Ubuntu, and
just wants to know more. Again, I see that as good.

Does he want to learn how Linux works, or does he want to just dive in
and use something that's relatively painless to get up and running but
isn't Windows?

Probably the latter.

(with a Father who knows a little about DOS and Windows but nothing
of Linux).

It all depends on your type of mind, I think. I tend to like stuff that's
clear and concise and just does one task rather than trying to do a
million things at once; I got started with SLS in 1993 (which later
became Slackware) and it all just Made Sense - all the various bits had
well-defined jobs, configuration was quick and easy and not at all
confusing.

OK. Going back a step, his only interest seems to be software based.
I'm not sure that he would even know how to connect the usual plugs to
the back of a PC. He has certainly not looked inside one, and I have
not encouraged him to - I don't want him accidentally touching the wrong
parts, but perhaps I'm over cautious.

Other options are to use the windows box as a remote GUI - or, if he just
wants to learn Linux/UNIX, don't even bother with the GUI at all and just
telnet or ssh to the Linux machine from the windows one via a DOS window.

I wonder whether starting with DOS is a good idea. My first real
exposure to PCs was an ancient Apricot, running their version of DOS
1.something, from memory. I learned a lot, just playing with it, and
writing simple batch files. I still have a 386 somewhere, with DOS 3.3
and W3.1 installed, and should perhaps encourage him to play with that.
--
Graeme

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Graeme wrote:

why would we use Linux?

speed, cost, security and a deep seated hatred of Microsoft :-)

grin
--
Graeme

In message , T i m
writes

And not all of us want to 'learn_all_about' this sort of thing. We
just want to try something else and at a level we are used to (ie, via
a GUI and with most stuff working / being supported directly). The fun
being 'a change is as good as a rest'. Most of us don't mind getting
the jack out now and again but don't expect to have to re-weld it just
to make it work! ;-)

My philosophy in a nutshell :-)
--
Graeme

Graeme writes:

Yes, it is running, and we can access the web, and doubtless do other
things, but, apart from the often discussed security implications, why
would we use Linux?

This is uk.d-i-y remember.

Why would we want to take an alarm clock to pieces?
Why would we want to run a 1972 Land-Rover?
Why would we have a set of security Torx screwdrivers in the toolkit?
Why do we have boxes of springs in the shed that "might come in useful
one day"?
Why do we read Axminster/MachineMart catalogues cover to cover?

MS (and to a greater extent Apple) has a "Big Brother knows best, now
don't worry your pretty little head about it" attitude.

Linux is more "here's a big bag of bits. Have fun. If you break
it you get to keep all the pieces".

For an inquisitive 9 year old, many components of a Linux distribution
might be a bit too complicated, but if you want to poke around in the
innards there is nothing to stop you.

You get all the tools free - compilers, interpreters. Back on the
languages thread, have a look at KTurtle - based on Logo.

There are plenty of people around willing to help, too. Have a look on
http://lug.org.uk/ to see if there is a group near you.

--
I'm looking for a job. CV at http://www.wylie.me.uk/static/cv.html
Unix/Linux/C/Internet/embedded and lots more. UK:Bradford/Manchester

Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/

On Sun, 09 May 2010 17:18:17 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-08, Bob Eager wrote:


Given that I have probably written more code in PDP11 assembler than
in any other language (*), what's the problem with that?

Nothing at all. In fact, I wrote a BCPL compiler for the PDP-11...!

I've spent the last year supervising a project on writing a PDP-11
simulator - so I really had to know the architecture...OTOH I have the
PDP-11 downstairs (at home) - if it worked..!

You could have had my 11/23+, except I gave it to Bletchley Park.

It doesn't have much wrong with it, I just need to get the time...it's an
11/23.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 09/05/10 21:31, Graeme wrote:

OK. Going back a step, his only interest seems to be software based. I'm
not sure that he would even know how to connect the usual plugs to the
back of a PC. He has certainly not looked inside one, and I have not
encouraged him to - I don't want him accidentally touching the wrong
parts, but perhaps I'm over cautious.

Probably. All of the high-voltage circuitry is in the power-supply which
is a sealed unit inside the case. Poking around with a screwdriver might
wreck the power supply or the motherboard and create a few sparks but
won't hurt him. PC power supplies can deliver up to 50A but at no more
than 12v.


Other options are to use the windows box as a remote GUI - or, if he just
wants to learn Linux/UNIX, don't even bother with the GUI at all and just
telnet or ssh to the Linux machine from the windows one via a DOS window.

I wonder whether starting with DOS is a good idea. My first real
exposure to PCs was an ancient Apricot, running their version of DOS
1.something, from memory. I learned a lot, just playing with it, and
writing simple batch files. I still have a 386 somewhere, with DOS 3.3
and W3.1 installed, and should perhaps encourage him to play with that.

No, DOS is too limited and too reliant on the CLI.


--
Bernard Peek

On Sun, 9 May 2010 21:07:00 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

OK. The machine we're using already has XP installed, and we're running
Ubuntu from the CD. Next step is to partition the hard drive, using
Gparted, but that is new territory. However, should things go wrong,
loss of the XP installation will not matter too much, as there is no
data there.


May I suggest the next step is actually running Ubuntu within Windows.

Windows-based Ubuntu Installer:
If you put the CD in whilst in Windows you get a menu pop up (wubi.exe
on the CD) and the second option is to 'Install Inside Windows".

This has several advantages.

You create some space on the std Windows drive so you don't have to
play with partitions (assuming you have some space etc).

You can uninstall Ubuntu with Add / Remove.

You don't have to muck about with Linux boot loaders (that can get a
bit tricky). You just get a typical Windows multi boot menu that you
can play with (set default OS and timeouts etc) in Windows.

AFAIK in use it looks and works like std Ubuntu (I'm not sure if it
fully but don't know).

Just though it might be worth a mention / reminder. ;-)

Cheers, T i m