Huge wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

http://bellard.org/jslinux/

A 486 emulator written in Javascript?
I bet that's going to be almost as quick as the LISP interpreter written
in MUMPS I came across once.

Downloads and boots (a cut down) Linux within Firefox in under 30
seconds for me ...

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 05/04/2013 10:55, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, polygonum wrote:
On 05/04/2013 08:41, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Petter Gustad
escribió:

Great! I hate to use all those web based forums.

+1

It's so inefficient to
point, click, type, paste, and copy in the browser.

And you can't killfile idiots and trolls.

I agree, but Usenet is dying.

(


Not for another year - paid my Berlin sub the other day. :-)

Well, me too. I like Usenet, for all kinds of reasons, but someone
showed me a depressing graph of traffic analysis for the uk.* groups
(I wish I could find it again! Ah, here we go ...)

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

It's not so much the steady decline in volumes, although if continued, Usenet
will be gone by 2016(*), but the 'number of posters' figures. There are 40
million people on the internet in the UK and only 1500 of them post to
Usenet? (Actually fewer than that, given that a some of them will be sock
puppets).

Is there some way we could make Usenet more popular? (Not "Facebook"
popular, but if we could get some new blood in - I suspect most Usenet
users are getting on...) Hmm; Someone's just claimed the first post made
on a Raspberry Pi.

(* Likely before that - if volumes fall too far, the existing providers
will drop out. Still, we could carry on as a hobbyist "service", I suppose.)

Traffic on uk.d-i-y is still holding strong though... 7.5k posts /
month for the last 12 months. in fact a rise from 2007, but not quite
up to the peak of 10k at the end of 2004.

If not using the new google groups, this may still work:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-i-y/about

The all time posting figures are interesting:

24492
23878
22336
21456
16034
15966
13688
12038
11291
11130

from which we can conclude:

TNP is winning since he has more than one posting address...
Andy Hall is still doing well is spite of being deceased!
and I obviously spend too much time here


I don't suppose that adding and makes
much difference since I now spend considerably less time in here

--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/04/13 11:12, John Williamson wrote:
How much of the 50% reduction in message numbers and bytes used on the
greenend.org graph is due to people not using the binary groups to share
files with the rise of facebook and other sharing services such as
soundcloud and Flickr?

I don't know Richard's source for his graph for sure, but I'm fairly
confident it's text-only.

You have obviously never run a news server.

Its MASSiVELY STUPENDOUSLY expensive to provide storage,.. Even for
text only.

Or it was back in the day. Multiple copies of every single message ever
written, or even the last 6 weeks or so, mean storage is replicated for
the entire usenet traffic right across the internet, and back in the day
of modems and UUCP, beyond as well.

Maybe it was back in the day. But now I think you could run a primary
text-only node off your home broadband connection without bothering the
'fair use' policy. Internet bandwidth and storage capacity has shot up and
Usenet traffic has shot down. If the stats are 30MB/day of the main
hierarchies, storage is the least of your worries.

Even that wasn't great. Again back in the day running a full text only
server was chewing 30% of total bandwidth he had. Today of course with
streaming videos its barely noticeable.

Today, of course, binaries on Usenet will completely overwhelm any
infrastructure that is foolish enough to take them...

Theo

On the 5 Apr 2013, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 05/04/13 12:30, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Mike Tomlinson may or may not have written...

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:
Looks rather devoid of messages at the moment!

Get posting then. A decent x86 emulator has just come out for it, and
it'll play Doom! What other reason do you need to get a Pi?

Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native build?

probably because a native build wont run on ARM?

There has been a RISC OS port of Doom for five, maybe even ten years.
That runs on ARM. See https://sites.google.com/site/jeffreyadoggett/
for example. There are even ports of Quake, Syndicate and Descent from
http://www.arsvcs.demon.co.uk/leisure/index.html among other people.

Games have been ported from PC (and before that Amiga, ST etc.) to
ARM-powered computers since the late eighties. They've even been
ported the other way round.

What you can actually run on the Pi depends on what OS you're using.
It's possible that a good number of the RISC OS ports will work on the
Pi.

The real question is whether 'ArcElite' will run.

--
Graham Thurlwell.
Jades' First Encounters Site.
http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

On 05/04/2013 15:49, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/04/2013 14:49, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Darren Salt
writes

Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native build?

Because there's loads of other stuff that'll run on DOS for which
sources are not available.

I recall seeing mention of a 486 PC emulator that runs in a javascript
in a browser...

There is a linux version he

http://bellard.org/jslinux/

A 486 emulator written in Javascript?

I bet that's going to be almost as quick as the LISP interpreter written
in MUMPS I came across once.

There comes a point though were you beat it to death with enough
horsepower, and it goes as quick as the real thing used to...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05...t_pc_emulator/

"The emulated hardware includes a 32-bit x86 compatible CPU, a 8259
programmable interrupt controller, a 8254 programmable interrupt timer,
and a 16450 UART (universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter).
According to Bellard, the emulated CPU is comparable to an Intel 486
chip, though it does not include a floating point unit. Bellard was able
to emulate a floating point unit, however, using the Linux kernel.

Bellard believes his emulator could be used for client-side
cryptographic processing. Or – if you're looking for a more serious
pursuit – he also points out it could eventually let you play old DOS
games."


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 05/04/2013 17:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/04/13 14:55, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/04/2013 10:55, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, polygonum wrote:
On 05/04/2013 08:41, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Petter
Gustad
escribió:

Great! I hate to use all those web based forums.

+1

It's so inefficient to
point, click, type, paste, and copy in the browser.

And you can't killfile idiots and trolls.

I agree, but Usenet is dying.

(


Not for another year - paid my Berlin sub the other day. :-)

Well, me too. I like Usenet, for all kinds of reasons, but someone
showed me a depressing graph of traffic analysis for the uk.* groups
(I wish I could find it again! Ah, here we go ...)

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

It's not so much the steady decline in volumes, although if continued,
Usenet
will be gone by 2016(*), but the 'number of posters' figures. There
are 40
million people on the internet in the UK and only 1500 of them post to
Usenet? (Actually fewer than that, given that a some of them will be
sock
puppets).

Is there some way we could make Usenet more popular? (Not "Facebook"
popular, but if we could get some new blood in - I suspect most Usenet
users are getting on...) Hmm; Someone's just claimed the first post made
on a Raspberry Pi.

(* Likely before that - if volumes fall too far, the existing providers
will drop out. Still, we could carry on as a hobbyist "service", I
suppose.)

Traffic on uk.d-i-y is still holding strong though... 7.5k posts / month
for the last 12 months. in fact a rise from 2007, but not quite up to
the peak of 10k at the end of 2004.

If not using the new google groups, this may still work:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-i-y/about

The all time posting figures are interesting:

24492
23878
22336
21456
16034
15966
13688
12038
11291
11130

from which we can conclude:

TNP is winning since he has more than one posting address...

Care to say what on earth that means?

Its the top ten list of all time posters to this group since its
inception. (email addresses as cited in the posts - but in a slight
obfuscated form).

I certainly don't have more than one posting address right now.

I was at b.c till someone pointed out it was not net friendly

But you clocked up 21k+ posts using it, in addition to the 16k on the
current one.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Huge wrote:
A newsreader written in Javascript?

I'd quite like to see a newsreader in AJAX - with the fluidity of gmail but
for Usenet. What Google Groups would be if Google actually cared (and knew
something about Usenet).

Theo

Theo Markettos wrote ...



Today, of course, binaries on Usenet will completely overwhelm any
infrastructure that is foolish enough to take them...



Really ? So how can a news service offer nearly a 1,000 days of binary
retention, when 10 years ago it was a struggle to get a week?

http://usenetstats.com/

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:44:56 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

I agree, but Usenet is dying.

Not for another year - paid my Berlin sub the other day. :-)

Me too.

AOL!

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 23:43:11 +0100, Eric wrote:

Today, of course, binaries on Usenet will completely overwhelm any
infrastructure that is foolish enough to take them...

Really ? So how can a news service offer nearly a 1,000 days of binary
retention, when 10 years ago it was a struggle to get a week?

Discs have fallen in price and increased in size quite a bit in ten
years. The HD in this machine is about ten years old at the time is was a
massive (and expensive SCSI) 1 GB, that is one gigabyte. These days it's
common to find basic machines with 1,000 GB (1 TB) drives.

There was a recent thread about the traffic volume of usenet recently,
was it in here? The text traffic is a pimple on the bum of the binaries.
ISTR that text was only about 250 MB/day, so a 1 TB drive will hold of
the order of 4,000 days or 10 years ish...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 01:01:25 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 23:43:11 +0100, Eric wrote:

Today, of course, binaries on Usenet will completely overwhelm any
infrastructure that is foolish enough to take them...

Really ? So how can a news service offer nearly a 1,000 days of binary
retention, when 10 years ago it was a struggle to get a week?

Discs have fallen in price and increased in size quite a bit in ten
years. The HD in this machine is about ten years old at the time is was
a massive (and expensive SCSI) 1 GB, that is one gigabyte. These days
it's common to find basic machines with 1,000 GB (1 TB) drives.

The other factor is that file system design has improved, and now scales
reasonably.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 06/04/2013 12:10, Owain wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:55 pm, John Rumm wrote:
It's not so much the steady decline in volumes, although if continued, Usenet
will be gone by 2016(*), but the 'number of posters' figures. There are 40
million people on the internet in the UK and only 1500 of them post to
Usenet? (Actually fewer than that, given that a some of them will be sock
puppets).
Traffic on uk.d-i-y is still holding strong though... 7.5k posts / month
for the last 12 months. in fact a rise from 2007, but not quite up to
the peak of 10k at the end of 2004.

If not using the new google groups, this may still work:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-i-y/about

Totalling the figures up for each year and comparing with the total
for the previous year gives

1997 14541 131.3%
1998 24379 167.7%
1999 33168 136.1%
2000 34894 105.2%
2001 46839 134.2%
2002 60738 129.7%
2003 89165 146.8%
2004 111777 125.4%
2005 116103 103.9%
2006 119900 103.3%
2007 86737 72.3%
2008 87441 100.8%
2009 76629 87.6%
2010 76066 99.3%
2011 77281 101.6%
2012 95225 123.2%

so UK DIY has been increasing every year apart from 2007, 08 and
(just) 2010.

I can't think how many email addresses or usernames I've had on
Usenet, I used to change them frequently to prevent spam before decent
spam filtering came in, so that will skew my posting stats (and
probably most others).

Comparative stats for uk.railway:

2000 84744 100.3%
2001 83938 99.0%
2002 78714 93.8%
2003 90027 114.4%
2004 99529 110.6%
2005 81231 81.6%
2006 80928 99.6%
2007 94280 116.5%
2008 81578 86.5%
2009 79299 97.2%
2010 72436 91.3%
2011 66383 91.6%
2012 56653 85.3%

And for uk.telecom:

1997 36887 114.3%
1998 53241 144.3%
1999 64073 120.3%
2000 41765 65.2%
2001 26685 63.9%
2002 21778 81.6%
2003 17564 80.7%
2004 20740 118.1%
2005 19888 95.9%
2006 13485 67.8%
2007 9780 72.5%
2008 6500 66.5%
2009 5035 77.5%
2010 4207 83.6%
2011 3112 74.0%
2012 2438 78.3%

which has been getting less popular every year since 2004 :-( Although
I suppose one should bring in the uk.telecom.* posts as well

I wonder what caused the peak on all the groups in 2004? I know it
wasn't me, I was out of the country a lot of the time.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 06/04/2013 12:34, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/04/2013 12:10, Owain wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:55 pm, John Rumm wrote:
It's not so much the steady decline in volumes, although if
continued, Usenet
will be gone by 2016(*), but the 'number of posters' figures. There
are 40
million people on the internet in the UK and only 1500 of them post to
Usenet? (Actually fewer than that, given that a some of them will be
sock
puppets).
Traffic on uk.d-i-y is still holding strong though... 7.5k posts / month
for the last 12 months. in fact a rise from 2007, but not quite up to
the peak of 10k at the end of 2004.

If not using the new google groups, this may still work:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-i-y/about

Totalling the figures up for each year and comparing with the total
for the previous year gives

1997 14541 131.3%
1998 24379 167.7%
1999 33168 136.1%
2000 34894 105.2%
2001 46839 134.2%
2002 60738 129.7%
2003 89165 146.8%
2004 111777 125.4%
2005 116103 103.9%
2006 119900 103.3%
2007 86737 72.3%
2008 87441 100.8%
2009 76629 87.6%
2010 76066 99.3%
2011 77281 101.6%
2012 95225 123.2%

so UK DIY has been increasing every year apart from 2007, 08 and
(just) 2010.

I can't think how many email addresses or usernames I've had on
Usenet, I used to change them frequently to prevent spam before decent
spam filtering came in, so that will skew my posting stats (and
probably most others).

Comparative stats for uk.railway:

2000 84744 100.3%
2001 83938 99.0%
2002 78714 93.8%
2003 90027 114.4%
2004 99529 110.6%
2005 81231 81.6%
2006 80928 99.6%
2007 94280 116.5%
2008 81578 86.5%
2009 79299 97.2%
2010 72436 91.3%
2011 66383 91.6%
2012 56653 85.3%

And for uk.telecom:

1997 36887 114.3%
1998 53241 144.3%
1999 64073 120.3%
2000 41765 65.2%
2001 26685 63.9%
2002 21778 81.6%
2003 17564 80.7%
2004 20740 118.1%
2005 19888 95.9%
2006 13485 67.8%
2007 9780 72.5%
2008 6500 66.5%
2009 5035 77.5%
2010 4207 83.6%
2011 3112 74.0%
2012 2438 78.3%

which has been getting less popular every year since 2004 :-( Although
I suppose one should bring in the uk.telecom.* posts as well

I wonder what caused the peak on all the groups in 2004? I know it
wasn't me, I was out of the country a lot of the time.


Doesn't that correspond with broadband becoming much more widely available?

--
Rod

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

I recall seeing mention of a 486 PC emulator that runs in a javascript
in a browser...

Yes, JPC

http://jpc.sourceforge.net/home_home.html

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

John Rumm escribió:

I recall seeing mention of a 486 PC emulator that runs in a javascript
in a browser...

Yes, JPC
http://jpc.sourceforge.net/home_home.html

No that's java, not javascript, the link to

http://bellard.org/jslinux/

which you removed *is* javascript

On 06/04/13 19:21, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, Theo Markettos wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/04/13 11:12, John Williamson wrote:
How much of the 50% reduction in message numbers and bytes used on the
greenend.org graph is due to people not using the binary groups to share
files with the rise of facebook and other sharing services such as
soundcloud and Flickr?

I don't know Richard's source for his graph for sure, but I'm fairly
confident it's text-only.

Oh, me too. I'm pretty sure volumes in terms of bytes are rising, but it's
all copyright theft.


You have obviously never run a news server.

Its MASSiVELY STUPENDOUSLY expensive to provide storage,.. Even for
text only.

Or it was back in the day.

W-e-e-e-e-e-lll

Multiple copies of every single message ever
written,

Perhaps you haven't run a news server after all. You apparently have no
idea how INN works, for a start.

How many news servers are there in the world, huge? or were then.

well over ten thousand at its height.

All carrying the same articles.

total waste of storage


Maybe it was back in the day. But now I think you could run a primary
text-only node off your home broadband connection without bothering the
'fair use' policy.

Quite.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
How many news servers are there in the world, huge? or were then.

well over ten thousand at its height.

All carrying the same articles.

total waste of storage

....connected by thrice-daily dialup (or, if you were lucky, a leased line).
And your site had hundreds of Usenet readers, on fast 10base2 local
ethernet. Time to introduce TNP to the concept of a 'cache'...

Theo

I demand that Graham Thurlwell may or may not have written...

On the 5 Apr 2013, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/04/13 12:30, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Mike Tomlinson may or may not have written...
En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:
Looks rather devoid of messages at the moment!
Get posting then. A decent x86 emulator has just come out for it, and
it'll play Doom! What other reason do you need to get a Pi?
Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native build?
probably because a native build wont run on ARM?

There has been a RISC OS port of Doom for five, maybe even ten years.

More like 10, I think. I recall seeing its source being worked on at one
Wakefield show.

That runs on ARM. See https://sites.google.com/site/jeffreyadoggett/ for
example. There are even ports of Quake, Syndicate and Descent from
http://www.arsvcs.demon.co.uk/leisure/index.html among other people.

A few commands for those who still think otherwise:

$ apt-cache search doom
$ apt-cache search quake

[snip]
The real question is whether 'ArcElite' will run.

Well. 26-bit code, as others have said. Aemulor?

(I still have code to port...)

--
| _ | Darren Salt, using Debian GNU/Linux (and Android)
| ( ) |
| X | ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
| / \ | http://www.asciiribbon.org/

He who believes the past cannot be changed has not yet written his memoirs.

On 2013-04-05, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Mike Tomlinson may or may not have written...

En el artÃ*culo , John
Rumm escribió:
Looks rather devoid of messages at the moment!

Get posting then. A decent x86 emulator has just come out for it, and
it'll play Doom! What other reason do you need to get a Pi?

Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native build?

Because then it would be "prboom" and not "doom" ?

--
š‚šƒ 100% natural

On 2013-04-05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo
roups.com, James Harris escribió:

I thought it was available worldwide anyway. Has something else
happened to aid sales in America?

model B available for a year, model A just launched, according to this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-pi-sells-out-
in-the-us-on-launch-day

beats me why anyone would save a couple bucks by going for the A.

A can do USB-OTG, uses less power and is slightly cheaper than the B

--
š‚šƒ 100% natural

In article ,
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2013-04-05, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Mike Tomlinson may or may not have written...

En el artÃ*culo , John
Rumm escribió:
Looks rather devoid of messages at the moment!

Get posting then. A decent x86 emulator has just come out for it, and
it'll play Doom! What other reason do you need to get a Pi?

Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native build?

Because then it would be "prboom" and not "doom" ?

Is the game the executable program that interprets the data file, or is
the game the data file?

doom.exe interprets doom.wad and lets you play Doom the game.

prboom interprets doom.wad and lets you play Doom the game.

Same when playing Zork - is the game the z-code intrepreter or the data
files? I doubt anyone would argue that in the Zork case the game is the
data file and the z-code intrepreter has been ported to many platforms -
same for Doom - since the doom engine has been ported to many platforms,
prboom is just one implementation of the doom engine that happens to
run under Linux.

So I have had the ability to play Doom (and Doom II - I have the original
CDs) under Linux for many years and the Pi is just one more PC I can
run Doom under.

If you think it can't run Doom just because you're not running doom.exe
then I think you're just being a shade too pedantic - the game is the
WAD file not the interpreter.

The photo I posted earlier was taken almost a year ago. Doom runs fine
on the Pi - it's been running for a year.

Gordon

Huge writes:

On 2013-04-05, polygonum wrote:
On 05/04/2013 08:41, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Petter Gustad
escribió:

Great! I hate to use all those web based forums.

+1

It's so inefficient to
point, click, type, paste, and copy in the browser.

And you can't killfile idiots and trolls.

I agree, but Usenet is dying.

(


Not for another year - paid my Berlin sub the other day. :-)

Well, me too. I like Usenet, for all kinds of reasons, but someone
showed me a depressing graph of traffic analysis for the uk.* groups
(I wish I could find it again! Ah, here we go ...)

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

It's not so much the steady decline in volumes, although if continued, Usenet
will be gone by 2016(*), but the 'number of posters' figures. There are 40
million people on the internet in the UK and only 1500 of them post to
Usenet? (Actually fewer than that, given that a some of them will be sock
puppets).

Is there some way we could make Usenet more popular? (Not "Facebook"
popular, but if we could get some new blood in - I suspect most Usenet
users are getting on...) Hmm; Someone's just claimed the first post made
on a Raspberry Pi.

(* Likely before that - if volumes fall too far, the existing providers
will drop out. Still, we could carry on as a hobbyist "service", I suppose.)


In short, revive the UUCP stuff (does it need reviving, or are there
not still a few dedicated old-timers?) to once again carry Usenet over
dialup links (which are more than fast enough for the text-based NGs
though certainly not for the binary ones).

I'm pretty sure I still have some of the old software for that, kicking
around here somewhere...... Yes, here's part of the README for uucp-1.05 :-


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This package is covered by the Gnu Public License. See the file
COPYING for details. If you would like to do something with this
package that you feel is reasonable but you feel is prohibited by the
license, contact me to see if we can work it out.

WHAT IT IS

This is the complete source code for a Unix UUCP package. It provides
everything you need to make a UUCP connection. It includes versions
of uucico, uusched, uuxqt, uux, uucp, uustat, uulog, uuname, uuto,
uupick, and cu, as well as uuchk (a program to check configuration
files), uuconv (a program to convert from one type of configuration
file to another) and tstuu (a test harness for the package).

This is the standard UUCP package of the Free Software Foundation.

The package currently supports the 'f', 'g' (in all window and packet
sizes), 'G', 't' and 'e' protocols, as well a Zmodem protocol and two
new bidirectional protocols. If you have a Berkeley sockets library,
it can make TCP connections. If you have TLI libraries, it can make
TLI connections. It supports a new configuration file mechanism which
I like (but other people dislike).

The package has a few advantages over regular UUCP:

You get the source code.

It uses significantly less CPU time than many UUCP packages.

You can specify a chat script to run when a system calls in,
allowing adjustment of modem parameters on a per system basis.

You can specify failure strings for chat scripts, allowing the
chat script to fail immediately if the modem returns ``BUSY''.

If you are talking to another instance of the package, you can use
the new bidirectional protocol for rapid data transfer in both
directions at once. You can also restrict file transfers by size
based on the time of day and who placed the call.

On the other hand:

It only runs on Unix. The code is carefully divided into system
dependent and system independent portions, so it should be
possible to port it to other systems. It would not be trivial.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

The Natural Philosopher writes:

On 05/04/13 11:12, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/04/2013 10:55, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, polygonum wrote:
On 05/04/2013 08:41, Huge wrote:
I agree, but Usenet is dying.

(


Not for another year - paid my Berlin sub the other day. :-)

Well, me too. I like Usenet, for all kinds of reasons, but someone
showed me a depressing graph of traffic analysis for the uk.* groups
(I wish I could find it again! Ah, here we go ...)

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

Is there some way we could make Usenet more popular? (Not "Facebook"
popular, but if we could get some new blood in - I suspect most Usenet
users are getting on...) Hmm; Someone's just claimed the first post made
on a Raspberry Pi.

(* Likely before that - if volumes fall too far, the existing providers
will drop out. Still, we could carry on as a hobbyist "service", I
suppose.)


How much of the 50% reduction in message numbers and bytes used on the
greenend.org graph is due to people not using the binary groups to share
files with the rise of facebook and other sharing services such as
soundcloud and Flickr?

It's also only showing figures since 2010, so what happened before that?

Advantages of text only usenet are that it's cheap to operate, in
storage, processing and bandwidth.

You have obviously never run a news server.

Its MASSiVELY STUPENDOUSLY expensive to provide storage,.. Even for
text only.

Only if you store everything forever. I've got 356,391 old uk.d-i-y
messages (it sez) dating back several years, which occupy only about
4GB on an 8GB partition.
That could be reduced several times by a good compression algorithm.

(I don't forward, and don't actually need all that guff, but I keep it
for the invaluable nuggets it contains).

So with a couple of 2 TB disks I could if I was interested store and
forward a heck of a lot of different NGs.

You don't have to carry all groups; part of the setup for UUCP is to
specify which groups you will accept from elsewhere, and which forward.
For us it might be mainly uk groups.

And if Usenet is truly 'dying' there won't be a need for much storage,
or fast transfer times, in any case.

Low latency isn't usually important; this reply is to a post dated
5th. April.

I don't know why you're so hot about it. Why does it matter to you?

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Huge writes:

On 2013-04-05, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/04/2013 14:49, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Darren Salt
writes

Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native build?

Because there's loads of other stuff that'll run on DOS for which
sources are not available.

I recall seeing mention of a 486 PC emulator that runs in a javascript
in a browser...

There is a linux version he

http://bellard.org/jslinux/

A 486 emulator written in Javascript?

I bet that's going to be almost as quick as the LISP interpreter written
in MUMPS I came across once.

Allegedly one was also written in TECO to prove that although it was an
editor, it was also an extensible language.




--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:59:41 +0000, Windmill wrote:

Huge writes:

On 2013-04-05, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/04/2013 14:49, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Darren Salt
writes

Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native
build?

Because there's loads of other stuff that'll run on DOS for which
sources are not available.

I recall seeing mention of a 486 PC emulator that runs in a javascript
in a browser...

There is a linux version he

http://bellard.org/jslinux/

A 486 emulator written in Javascript?

I bet that's going to be almost as quick as the LISP interpreter written
in MUMPS I came across once.

Allegedly one was also written in TECO to prove that although it was an
editor, it was also an extensible language.

I'd love to see that one....



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article , Windmill
wrote:

A 486 emulator written in Javascript?

I bet that's going to be almost as quick as the LISP interpreter written
in MUMPS I came across once.

Allegedly one was also written in TECO to prove that although it was an
editor, it was also an extensible language.


What and where is the recommended version of teco for RPi?

I'd like something close to DEC teco-11 v40

....and a pony, onna stick

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

On 11/04/13 14:35, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-11, Windmill wrote:
Huge writes:

On 2013-04-05, polygonum wrote:
On 05/04/2013 08:41, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Petter Gustad
escribió:

Great! I hate to use all those web based forums.
+1

It's so inefficient to
point, click, type, paste, and copy in the browser.
And you can't killfile idiots and trolls.
I agree, but Usenet is dying.

(


Not for another year - paid my Berlin sub the other day. :-)
Well, me too. I like Usenet, for all kinds of reasons, but someone
showed me a depressing graph of traffic analysis for the uk.* groups
(I wish I could find it again! Ah, here we go ...)
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
It's not so much the steady decline in volumes, although if continued, Usenet
will be gone by 2016(*), but the 'number of posters' figures. There are 40
million people on the internet in the UK and only 1500 of them post to
Usenet? (Actually fewer than that, given that a some of them will be sock
puppets).
Is there some way we could make Usenet more popular? (Not "Facebook"
popular, but if we could get some new blood in - I suspect most Usenet
users are getting on...) Hmm; Someone's just claimed the first post made
on a Raspberry Pi.
(* Likely before that - if volumes fall too far, the existing providers
will drop out. Still, we could carry on as a hobbyist "service", I suppose.)

In short, revive the UUCP stuff (does it need reviving, or are there
not still a few dedicated old-timers?) to once again carry Usenet over
dialup links
Don't be ridiculous. There's no reason not to carry on using NNTP over
the Internet.


that was my exact thought.

you are more likely to see a low bandwidth IP link than a modem able to
sustain an hours conversation in the less developed parts of the world -
mobile and satellite reaches places copper - good copper - does not.





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 5 Apr, 12:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/04/13 12:30, Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Mike Tomlinson may or may not have written...

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:
Looks rather devoid of messages at the moment!

Get posting then. *A decent x86 emulator has just come out for it, and
it'll play Doom! *What other reason do you need to get a Pi?

Why x86 emulation when you can (or should be able to) run a native build?

probably because a native build wont run on ARM?

Doom was running, compiled natively, on ARM 10 years ago.

MBQ

In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2013-04-11, Elliott Roper wrote:
snip
What and where is the recommended version of teco for RPi?

I'd like something close to DEC teco-11 v40

...and a pony, onna stick

I got mine from here;

http://almy.us/teco.html

Thanks, I have that one for OS X. Sadly, it does not do m,n:w for split
screen editing. (f'rinstance 3,7:w gives you a three line scrolling
region for commands on the bottom of your VT220 with the rest scrolling
the buffer contents) I dunno whether it is teco or Mac terminal's
emulation of VTs that is holding it up.

It would be fun to run it on a pi regardless.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

The Natural Philosopher writes:

On 11/04/13 14:35, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-11, Windmill wrote:
Huge writes:

On 2013-04-05, polygonum wrote:
On 05/04/2013 08:41, Huge wrote:
On 2013-04-05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Petter Gustad
escribió:

Great! I hate to use all those web based forums.
+1

It's so inefficient to
point, click, type, paste, and copy in the browser.
And you can't killfile idiots and trolls.
I agree, but Usenet is dying.

(


Not for another year - paid my Berlin sub the other day. :-)
Well, me too. I like Usenet, for all kinds of reasons, but someone
showed me a depressing graph of traffic analysis for the uk.* groups
(I wish I could find it again! Ah, here we go ...)
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
It's not so much the steady decline in volumes, although if continued, Usenet
will be gone by 2016(*), but the 'number of posters' figures. There are 40
million people on the internet in the UK and only 1500 of them post to
Usenet? (Actually fewer than that, given that a some of them will be sock
puppets).
Is there some way we could make Usenet more popular? (Not "Facebook"
popular, but if we could get some new blood in - I suspect most Usenet
users are getting on...) Hmm; Someone's just claimed the first post made
on a Raspberry Pi.
(* Likely before that - if volumes fall too far, the existing providers
will drop out. Still, we could carry on as a hobbyist "service", I suppose.)

In short, revive the UUCP stuff (does it need reviving, or are there
not still a few dedicated old-timers?) to once again carry Usenet over
dialup links
Don't be ridiculous. There's no reason not to carry on using NNTP over
the Internet.


that was my exact thought.

you are more likely to see a low bandwidth IP link than a modem able to
sustain an hours conversation in the less developed parts of the world -
mobile and satellite reaches places copper - good copper - does not.

Obviously one uses the best/fastest communication link one can get (and
rely on). My point was that if (as hinted at) all the large Usenet providers
closed down, it would still be possible to carry on by reverting to old
methods. Not necessarily via dialup modems only; it ought to be possible
to use Android gadgets, Bluetooth devices, Wifi etc., maybe with some
range-extending enhancements.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost