KCLUG

1 participants
3240 discussions

Making a categorical niche. The "most used" functionality. And what defines it
by Oren Beck 13 Oct '08

13 Oct '08

The simple concept is deceptive in it's impact. We at one time had niche hardware such as mail stations and Pocketmail devices. And they *STILL* have a devoted following of users in their niche markets. If all one does is a limited range of functions they have no need for more. The value of accepting that fact hatches a new zen like wisdom. If all the user is doing is Function list X- than they can use whatever will comfortably do the list. YES- many of us really want or need to do "bleeding edge" stuff with computers. But there is a major chunk of our society that "nothing beyond a browser" is needed. We even can consider skipping a local printer. All that is needed is a net browser. There are countless numbers of folks who do NOT have easy access to a web browser of any sort. Having one in the day room of a care facility for example. Having the less fortunate among us get one per family! One Laptop Per Child ? When America does not have one web browser enabled seat for each FAMILY? That reality sort of is derogatory to America. Sending a single usable system or laptop to recycling is a shameful failure. The preferred recycling should be into productive service. By running a Linux distro suited to that minimum functionality. The details can be made trivial. Oh? Who pays for this? Our whole species if we flunk at it. -- Oren Beck 816.729.3645

2 2

Re: regarding "just plain works" as a goal
by Leo Mauler 13 Oct '08

13 Oct '08

--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 16:46, Leo Mauler > <webgiant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > nicely for multimedia and applications, they > > will agree that Linux can resurrect allegedly > > "obsolete" hardware. > > Right. And so can Windows 98. No, no it can't. Ubuntu 8.04.1 runs nicely on a PIII-1Ghz (actually I have it running on a PII-600Mhz as well) and has *current* updates. Windows98 has *no current updates*, so it will be pwned the instant it connects to the Internet. Also, software isn't current for Windows98 like it is for Linux. With Linux the end user merely needs to access a software repository for current software (or create a download script for a friend's broadband connection, see P.S. at the bottom of this message). The Windows98 user must hunt through EBay and used computer stores and junk bins at software sellers to find hopelessly outdated software. Windows98 cannot be used to resurrect allegedly "obsolete" hardware precisely because Windows 98 *is* obsolete, unlike the hardware it ran on. > Old hardware is garbage. Garbage is > faster today than it was a year ago. To paraphrase the old proverb, "Billy Crook's garbage is everyone else's treasure." Or, if you read to the very end of this email reply, paying close attention to what Billy Crook says about old hardware, "Billy Crook's garbage is *also* Billy Crook's treasure." > Thanks for comparing Linux to Windows 98. I never did. You did, most inadequately. > It can run fast on old hardware too, and you're > just cementing the idea in the heads of the public > that Linux is what you put on garbage computers > before the trash collector comes to haul them off. > That's progress. Thanks. I don't even think > there's a need for this public PR campaign any > more. Microsoft has done a better job than any > of us could at making Linux look good. You may recall there's this thing being called a "banking and credit crisis" happening right now. Lots of companies are freaking that for the next few years they may not be able to buy new computers (or in your words, upgrade their "garbage") because they will have no credit to borrow against. Thanks to Microsoft Vista, the only way to "upgrade" to the only new OS they know about is to buy new computers. So they, in their own minds, cannot upgrade right now. People need to realize that that currently-owned business computers which run sluggishly on Windows XP/Vista will fly on Linux and be safe from modern threats (unlike Windows98). What you don't seem to realize is that if someone sees a PIII-1Ghz machine run faster on Linux than their P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine runs on Vista, the above average level of intelligence of an ITEC attendee means they will probably make the leap of logic saying that a P4-3.0Ghz machine would run considerably faster on Linux than on Vista. > > While some ITEC attendees might figure out how to > > dual-boot their existing system to explore Linux, > > most of them will balk at dual-booting their main > > system. What I aim to do is show them that the > > 10 year old 1Ghz system in their closet (or the > > $25 1Ghz systems on Craigslist) could be restored > > as a Linux training system or child's computer. > > That will get them using Linux. > > Not when they have a REAL computer already on their > desk Right now everyone is worried about money. There are still FUD trolls out there talking about Linux trashing hard drives. No company is going to spend new money buying a new machine to test Linux on, and no company is going to want to risk trashing (real fears or not) an existing, working PC system just to save a few bucks on Linux. If I show them a modern machine, they are going to think in terms of modern machine prices, then think of the fact that their bank won't lend them any more money, and thus continue to use their existing Windows OS setups. If I show them they can test out Linux on a PIII-1Ghz machine, and even use it as a production machine in some circumstances, they're going to be able to afford the $50 at the Surplus Exchange for a PIII-1Ghz machine (as of October 2nd, 2008). I thought I might plug the Surplus Exchange while I'm at ITEC as well, they are an *actual* non-profit and do have great prices on older machines suitable for trying out Linux, as well as training classes helping teenagers learn how to build and maintain PCs. Whether or not a computer is REAL is an entirely subjective opinion, as you seem to agree with despite emphatically insisting that "garbage" computers have no use and wouldn't be wanted by anyone for anything, especially not by Billy Crook, no, not even as a WAN/router box. > Show them Linux on a MODERN machine. It is NOT > what you put on old garbage. It is what you replace > Vista with when you need to get work done. Full agreement with the "replace Vista" concept, but if I show up with a P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine and run Linux, people may be tempted to think that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing it to fly. If they see a PIII-1Ghz system fly on Linux, they have to admit that the OS choice has more to do with it than the hardware, because most of them will have used a PIII-1Ghz system running Windows. > > The main system can come later. > > Yeah, by your plan, it will come ten years later > when it's in the closet, and there's another new > system on the desk. And the new system would be running Linux, of course, because the end user had been playing with Linux for ten years. "Test machine now, main machine later" is how I approached it 10 years ago, and the reason why I think that this reasoning works is that it worked on *me* (though no doubt much faster these days: the instant Ubuntu Linux came along, it made me drop Windows as a production OS almost instantly). > And the other ten year old software [Windows98] > plays "all those cool retro DOS games" (without > quirks). Personally I'd consider "having hundreds of unpatched security holes WHICH WILL NEVER BE PATCHED" at the very least a "quirk", if not "a reason to run away screaming". > If you want to make a statement, bring two, > identical new computers in. Wipe Vista off > one of them, and have them doing the same > things, with a cpu/memory utilization meter > always on top. That would TOTALLY RUIN THE POINT of the KCLUG booth. After all, Linux can *stand on its own*. If we constantly engage in Microsoft bashing, we look like the fringe "nutritional supplement" industry which uses doctor-bashing and medicine-bashing as a sales pitch: "use our products, not necessarily because they're better but because all the other products are EVIL!" Frankly I think that Linux can stand on its own, without all the Microsoft bashing. We do a lot of M$-bashing here, because we're all Linux converts here (and some of us still support Microsoft products), but out there on the ITEC Exhibitor floor the focus needs to be on informing people about what Linux can do, not that Microsoft is evil. The attendees have to build, maintain, and service Microsoft already, they already know that Microsoft is evil and do not need reminding. What they don't know is what Linux can do, or something else that Linux can do that they didn't know yet which would make them seriously consider using Linux. I have been bringing a "Why Not Use Linux" tri-fold pamphlet to ITEC for the past few years, designed on OpenOffice.org and printed from a Linux machine, which describes Linux in glowing terms while avoiding any reference whatsoever to any other OS. People need to be told about Linux and what it can do for them. They do not need to be told Microsoft is evil (this is self-evident information ;-) ). > > I think an attendee who has ever had to upgrade > > his or her PC <snip> > > I really couldn't wait until the end of that line. > I'm serious. I had to stop right here to ask What? > Where have you been? People don't upgrade their PCs. > Maybe we do, but the rest of the world does not. > I've looked at what ITEC cost to attend, and what > was on the schedule, and it sounded to me like > corporate IT middle management. Regarding the ITEC "cost to attend", the really high prices are for the Exhibitors, not the Attendees. The Attendees (before I started getting in as a KCLUG Exhibitor, I was also an Attendee) can get in for *free*. I still get E-mails from the ITEC promoter telling me that the Exhibitor Floor ITEC (plus some free seminars) can still be had for *free*. The folks going to the seminars are most likely the IT department people, with any extra paid seminar costs paid for by their companies. So we are talking to the IT department employees, the IT guys for small businesses and government agencies, and the IT guys who work contracts for consulting agencies, and mostly not the middle management, when we speak to ITEC attendees. One of my oldest friends is the IT guy for the Kansas City School For The Blind: his employer can't afford expensive seminar fees, but since basic ITEC admission is free, he attends ITEC every year. > [Corporate IT middle management] don't open the > computer. They don't upgrade windows. They buy > another computer with 'the new windows' on it. No, they pay an IT department to do mysterious things with computers. The IT department also attends ITEC, you know, and they're handed a budget by middle management and told to make the most of it. Expecting that the IT people always tell the truth, when doing exactly what middle management thinks they want to happen would be so much more expensive than the existing budget, is somewhat naive on your part. IT departments are successful when the end user has no idea what the IT department does. This can cause problems for the IT department later on, when bean-counters think that the IT budget can be cut because "the computers run so well we don't need such a high IT budget", but the fact is that the less middle management knows about the operation of the IT department, the better for the entire company. > </snip>because Microsoft added more bloat to > > their Windows OS and he or she got sick of > > the older hardware system slowdowns, will > > be impressed with how Linux runs so fast > > on a PIII-1Ghz machine. > > When windows users are sick of the slowdowns, > they call Geek Squad, or buy a new one. Yes, but we're not talking to "most Windows users" here, as you yourself pointed out just a few paragraphs ago. We're speaking to the IT departments. The middle management (or in fact any other non-technical Windows users) aren't really involved here. > I have NEVER been impressed on how Linux ran > on old hardware. Maybe that's just because I > use it on modern machines on a daily basis > though. And you aren't everyone in the world. In some ways, be glad of that. ;-) > Listen to this carefully, because it is important. > NOBODY WANTS the old computer in the closet/basement. Because the only OS option they know about is Windows OS. Don't try to use "hatred of Windows" as your "proof" of "hatred of old hardware." > It's there because they're afraid trash pickup will > bill them for hazardous waste disposal. Because they don't know a useful way of using it in their home, because they only know about Windows. Again, you are erroneously claiming the effects of "hatred of Windows" are actually the effects of "hatred of old hardware." > So what old hardware I use, I use for WAN > networking/firewall and proxy hosts, because > that, it can keep up with. So, what you are saying is that *you* WANT the old computer in the closet/basement? Aren't you just cementing the idea in the heads of the public that Linux is what you put on garbage computers before the trash collector comes to haul them off? Isn't Linux NOT what you put on old garbage? Aren't you NEVER impressed on how Linux runs on old hardware? It is rather silly that you went on for several paragraphs insisting that people should not be informed that Linux is what you put on garbage computers, and that people will not find Linux on garbage computers to be useful, and then informed everyone that *you* put Linux on garbage computers and feel that Linux on garbage computers can be useful to end users. ======================== P.S. It occurred to me just now (honestly forgot) that I'm typing this entire message on the demo PC (with its 15" monitor), the Ubuntu Linux 8.04.1 PIII-1Ghz machine, while using it to listen to music and download updates for a friend's Linux PC which has no high-speed Internet (Synaptic "download scripts" are nice). This system is most definitely not "garbage" and still has a lot of use left on it with Linux, use it would most definitely not have under Windows 98. ========================

6 11

Acer Aspire One built in wireless really 500mW?
by Duane Attaway 13 Oct '08

13 Oct '08

That's what iwconfig shows! Does anyone else have one of these netbooks with the new native 2.6.27 ath5k wireless drivers installed? iwconfig is showing 27dbm transmit power. That can't be right, but my wireless router is showing a 13db stronger signal compared to my other laptops. That would put it around 500mW. Unfortunately, the iwconfig txpower setting doesn't seem to lower the power. I don't need to transmit to the entire neighborhood. And when I send large files for half an hour or more, I need to reboot by taking out the battery to reset the wireless module. It gets that hot. The reception on the card is quite good too. Very good signal to noise ratio. localhost dattaway # iwconfig wlan0 wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"ilikecheesereallyido" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: 00:14:BF:04:F6:2F Bit Rate=12 Mb/s Tx-Power=27 dBm Retry min limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr=2352 B Encryption key:off Power Management:off Link Quality=40/100 Signal level:-76 dBm Noise level=-102 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0

2 2

Wireless bridging tutorial
by Justin Dugger 13 Oct '08

13 Oct '08

I've recently come into the possession of a video game console capable of connecting to the internet via ethernet. Unfortunately, no ethernet port is within reasonable range. I have a spare WRT54GL and I know there was a thread earlier about alternative linksys firmwares and I'm a fan of Tomato. Does anyone know of a guide on the Web for Tomato to set up a wireless bridge for this? Justin Dugger

1 0

Re: Internet Access (The Lack Thereof) At ITEC (was Re: regarding "just plain works" as a goal)
by Leo Mauler 10 Oct '08

10 Oct '08

--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:13, Leo Mauler > <webgiant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > BTW, wouldn't calling KCLUG a non-profit be > > untruthful? > > No. It would not. Show me what profit we make. > Calling it a 501(c)3 would be untruthful. I'm sorry, but this erroneous opinion of yours needs to be pointed out publicly so that others can realize exactly where the law regulates the use of the word "non-profit." In the original message, you wrote: > On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 16:46, Leo Mauler > > <webgiant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Secondly, every year for the past three years > > > there hasn't been reliable free wireless > > > Internet on the ITEC Exhibitor floor. This > > > means that the option of showing people the > > > Internet on the demo Linux PC will most likely > > > not be available, which prevents people from > > > seeing the "blinkenlights" Internet (for good > > > or bad). > > > > Bring a wire. Find a hole to stick it in. > > Convention halls usually have ethernet. I > > guarantee there's not going to be hundreds of > > people there, and no internet. Not in 2008. And the part which is vitally important as to why "calling KCLUG a nonprofit" in order to solicit donations could be a problem: > > If they want to charge, bring a 300 foot cable, > > and a router, and walk around telling other > > vendors your a nonprofit, and beg for bandwidth. > > If you really want it, bring a sign for whoever > > agrees that says "we support the KCLUG" for > > whoever cooperates. Claiming to be a nonprofit "because you make no money" is one thing. Thats free speech. You're referring to your lack of profit and having a good laugh without affecting anyone else. Claiming to be a nonprofit and then **using that status to ask for donations** is another matter entirely, may constitute fraud if your organization is not a recognized IRS 501(c) organization (legally the term "nonprofit" only applies to 501(c) organizations, and in a strict sense only to 501(c)(3) organizations) and requires considerably more paperwork (state and federal) than just "bringing a sign". It may not be an outright lie, but it is bending the truth just enough to constitute fraud. The organization which gave us the Internet access may assume some form of tax deduction for the "gift", since we referred to ourselves as a "nonprofit", and if denied said tax deduction, could conceivably sue for fraudulent charitable solicitations. And then there's the matter of filing the state taxes on the donated Internet connection, since KCLUG is not exempt from taxes on income. Who here wants to volunteer? The Kansas Attorney General would be only too happy to step in and find the person who went around fraudulently claiming KCLUG was a nonprofit organization and hold that person personally responsible, if KCLUG was discovered to be the disorganization that it is. The cost of the Internet could be rather expensive, depending on the organization which "donates" it to us. Booth electricity is agreed-to as part of the booth itself, as is the booth, and the booth is given "free", so it technically has no monetary value and thus no taxation rules apply.

3 2

Re: regarding "just plain works" as a goal
by Leo Mauler 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It runs O.K., but it's not going to turn water > into wine. You just try running the Gimp or > OpenOffice on that Pentium 2, and tell me how > it works out. I'm not going to say it runs fast, but a PII-300Mhz (192MB) laptop I have runs the GIMP decently well, and even OpenOffice.org 2.0. I know this because I recently had to do some website development while out of town, and the laptop managed to do everything I needed. The PII-600Mhz machine has 512MB RAM, so I'd expect it to perform even better than the adequate performance of the laptop. Personally I think you just *assume* that Linux won't run well on older hardware, rather than have any personal experience with running current applications on older hardware. You assume Linux isn't that good on older hardware, so you *arbitrarily* limit what you do with older hardware. > Try some Firefox plugins. Try compiz. Actually, try kde > 4.1 or gnome 2.24. The laptop is running Gnome 2.20.1. Nothing anyone says will make me like the KDE GUI. Compiz requires a high-end graphics card, but its mostly eye-candy, like Aero. As for firefox plugins, the laptop is running a Flash blocker and has and runs Chatzilla as well. > Yes, Linux is better/faster than windows. No, > old crap isn't the right place to show it. Insulting someone else's opinion is a great way to try and get them not to express it to others, I.e., keeping others from being informed. If you wanted others to be informed, you wouldn't have bothered with the insult. > and I find it rather repugnant to hear people say > "Oh yeah, Linux, that's the thing you put on old > computers, right?" No. Stop it. Buy a brand new > machine with Linux on it. When people see Linux > on a slow computer, they see Linux is slow. Yeah, > it's not as slow as the alternatives, but its sill > slow. We're just going to have to differ on this one. People will see the brand new computer and think "so Linux benefits from dual-core processors just like Vista, so why bother switching?" Running Linux on older hardware makes them sit up and notice that the bloat in Vista is missing from Linux. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:04, Leo Mauler > <webgiant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > There are still FUD trolls out there talking > > about Linux trashing hard drives. > > IT people know that software doesn't irrevocably > damage hard drives. At least they should. God > I hope they do. Funny, you were the one insisting up and down and left and right that the audience coming to the KCLUG booth was computer illiterate middle management, not IT professionals. However, even if the only folks who come by the booth are IT professionals, middle management are still the folks who need convincing, because they control the purse strings. Middle management hears and believes the FUD trolls, so IT has to put together an older PC and point out how it hasn't trashed the hard drive on the demo system. > > and run Linux, people may be tempted to think > > that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing > > it to fly. > > Boot it off of a thumbdrive, and leave the case > open and hard drive blatantly disconnected. > When people ask how that works you'll have > your chance to rant about how fantastic Linux is. The best you can say is a thumbdrive? Yes, lots of room to show off software on a thumbdrive system. > I never said everyone hates Windows, No, you just decided that people didn't want the system in their closet because it was old, forgetting completely that the reason they thought they can't use their closet system was entirely due to Windows not running on it very well. You tried to claim that people don't like old hardware when what they really don't like is Windows. > Immediately cease ranting about hatred of Windows. > I never mentioned any hatred of Windows, Leo > Mauler, and I'd appreciate if you'd get over it. It would have been very easy not to mention Windows, and hatred thereof, if you hadn't been the one to bring it up in the first place. On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Right. And so can Windows 98. Old hardware > > is garbage. Garbage is faster today than it > > was a year ago. Thanks for comparing Linux > > to Windows 98. It can run fast on old hardware > > too, and you're just cementing the idea in the > > heads of the public that Linux is what you > > put on garbage computers before the trash > > collector comes to haul them off. That's > > progress. Thanks. I don't even think there's > > a need for this public PR campaign any more. > > Microsoft has done a better job than any of us > > could at making Linux look good. Your very first paragraph made a case for "hatred of Windows", and also tried to put the blame for this case-making on me. I never said that Linux is comparable to Windows 98. You claimed I was making the comparison, when I never said anything of the sort. > Most people don't know what 'OS' means. > People don't like old computers because > old computers are old, and slower than > new computers. You're not going to > argue that fact out of existence. And why are they slow? Because the Windows OS that runs on them is slow. You're taking their ignorance of what is causing the problem and claiming it is the real reason for their troubles. People don't like old computers because they think they can't do anything with them, because the only way they know to do anything with them is with the Windows OS that came with their machine. If they had Linux to bring those old computers back to life, they wouldn't dislike old hardware. An analogy would be a guy who owns an older, working diesel car, and can't afford diesel fuel. He doesn't know about how he can convert used vegetable oil from a local fast food place into (nearly) free biodiesel. Now, does he hate his diesel car because (a) he hates diesel cars, or (b) because he can't fuel the car with fuel the oil companies are pricing out of his ability to pay for it? The correct answer is (b). If he finds out how to make (nearly) free biodiesel fuel from used vegetable oil, he will like his diesel car because he can now make use of his diesel car. > Leo Mauler, you accused me of "insisting that > people should not be informed". That is false, > and libellous. It has never been my goal > to prevent people from being informed. And earlier in this same E-mail message, this message where you claim it was never your goal to prevent people from learning about Linux on older hardware, you said: > I find it rather repugnant to hear people say > "Oh yeah, Linux, that's the thing you put on > old computers, right?" No. Stop it. Buy a > brand new machine with Linux on it. Stop it? As in "do not inform others" about Linux on older hardware? As in the message you claim you aren't saying? You spent a sizable chunk of the original message, and now a few more sentences in this same message, insulting me about my desire to tell people about Linux running on older hardware, in fact telling me to "stop it." You took a demo PC on older hardware as a personal insult. If you didn't want to be thought of as "insisting that people should not be informed", you shouldn't have expressed so much annoyance at the thought of people being informed. On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "[Y]ou're just cementing the idea in the > > heads of the public that Linux is what you > > put on garbage computers before the trash > > collector comes to haul them off. That's > > progress. Thanks. Rather disingenuous to claim that you never intended for people not to be informed when you wrote a huge E-mail to me saying it would be a terrible idea for me to inform people about Linux running on older hardware, and reiterated your "stop it" command within the same message where you tried to claim you didn't want to prevent my message about Linux running on older hardware. Was trying to convince me my idea was stupid somehow a reverse-psychology ploy to get me to do it? > If you're trying to market Linux, it's ability > to run on old hardware is not nearly as attractive > as getting better performance than alternative > software on modern hardware. Apparently you've missed the news of the past few months entirely, so I'll summarize in a single sentence: If you're trying to market Linux in an economy where banks aren't lending any money whatsoever to companies so that they can buy modern hardware, the ability of Linux to run on brand new (i.e., newly-purchased) modern hardware is not nearly as attractive as getting better performance than alternative software on *existing* hardware.

3 2

Internet Access (The Lack Thereof) At ITEC (was Re: regarding "just plain works" as a goal)
by Leo Mauler 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 16:46, Leo Mauler > <webgiant(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Secondly, every year for the past three > > years there hasn't been reliable free > > wireless Internet on the ITEC Exhibitor > > floor. This means that the option of > > showing people the Internet on the demo > > Linux PC will most likely not be available, > > which prevents people from seeing the > > "blinkenlights" Internet (for good or bad). > > Bring a wire. Find a hole to stick it in. > Convention halls usually have ethernet. I > guarantee there's not going to be hundreds of > people there, and no internet. Not in 2008. You've clearly never been at ITEC if you feel you can make the claim that the Internet is available at the Overland Park Convention Center. I've been there for three years. Personally I can't even remember the Microsoft booth having Internet, to drop a name of a vendor with deep pockets and a vested interest in the Internet itself. Its all business cards, paper forms, business-card-sized CDs, and sneakernet flash memory keys at ITEC, even back in 2007. Internet availability would mean you would get the ITEC attendee to type in their information for you, saving paying a data entry operator back home, but still no one has Internet at ITEC. > If they want to charge, bring a 300 foot cable, > and a router, and walk around telling other > vendors your a nonprofit, and beg for bandwidth. > If you really want it, bring a sign for whoever > agrees that says "we support the KCLUG" for > whoever cooperates. Well, the coffee shop 100 feet away from the entrance to the Exhibitor hall (so we'd need more like a 300 foot Ethernet cable plus another 200 foot Ethernet cable plus some form of signal booster between the two and a power outlet there as well) has Internet kiosks available for free. Everyone at ITEC who needs Internet goes there. I figure if Microsoft couldn't convince a coffee shop which runs Microsoft OSes on PC hardware to share its Internet with their booth, that Internet must not be available. Again, I've been to ITEC. Clearly you haven't, if you think that admission to ITEC is expensive for *everyone*, even to Basic ITEC Attendees. Sometimes they even throw in the Conferences for free. BTW, wouldn't calling KCLUG a non-profit be untruthful? I thought it was just a "not expected to make a profit" organization. Claiming to be a nonprofit while not being a nonprofit can bring on legal troubles.

3 2

Reuse, recycle - Things to do with an old computer… @ Digital Nomads
by JDP/Frogman 08 Oct '08

08 Oct '08

Sent to you by JDP/Frogman via Google Reader: Reuse, recycle - Things to do with an old computer… @ Digital Nomads via MAKE Magazine by Phillip Torrone on 10/8/08 MAKE is participating in a campaign with DELL called Digtal Nomads, my latest post is about things you can do with an old computer... I seem to be magnet for old computers. It’s not a bad thing really — people assume that an old or broken laptop will likely find some use when handed over to me. It’s true. Photo frames, music servers, print servers, robot brains, postage stations, MAME (retro gaming)… whatever, I’ll do something with an old computer before ever consider throwing it out. I’m sure many of you have the same collection somewhere. But the thing I like to do the most when receiving an old laptop is to wipe it completely and set it up for a kid or someone who doesn’t have a computer to use. It’s the most rewarding thing you can possibly do. You never know what will spark a mind to become interested in science and technology but I think a computer increases the odds. I fill the drive with PDFs of some old science texts and bookmarks to all the sites I think are fun and educational. It’s a bit of a lottery ticket approach, maybe these kids will just goof off, but if just a few end up solving some of the challenges ahead because they tuned in early it’s worth the hour or so I spend fixing up these old machines. Read more | Permalink | Comments | Read more articles in Computers | Digg this! Things you can do from here: - Subscribe to MAKE Magazine using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

1 0

A quite on topic comment regarding "just plain works" as a goal
by Oren Beck 07 Oct '08

07 Oct '08

We have several levels of computer user. Defining them is edgy beyond the basic dividing line between GUI and CLI users. There are many folks who consider either extreme quite viable. and they get a bit -intense in expressing it. Same applies to the "Multimedia" crowd which considers animated blinkenlight and sound/video presentations as preferable to flat text. The devil appears in reconciling a conflict for mundane users in the extreme application biases. One set of websites might be so deadly flat it looks more like a log dump than a web page intended for humans. The other set may replicate "Grand Theft Auto's look&feel." Let me explain the shortest form as to why both extremes affect the Linux world. WE use browsers that may not be "default ready" to handle the "video game replication" websites. Which to the "Video gaming consumers" makes Linux seem a dead duck.. I am damned if I have easy answers beyond the warning scream that if at ITEC for example a walkerby or lookylou idly punches up their favorite website on a demo Linux machine- and they see "placeholders" or "click to see image" or anything other than the site rendering as it does on their Flash laden home machine- WE FAIL.and so does Linux... Same with Audio. -- Oren Beck 816.729.3645

3 2

Re: Midrange Web Browser? (between Firefox and Dillo)
by Sean Crago 07 Oct '08

07 Oct '08

Have you tried simpler Gecko engine based browsers? The fact that they use it on the Nokia Internet Tablets (considerably weaker than your laptop, I'd imagine) implies that you might have more luck trying something like Epiphany. Not sure if that particular project is terribly succesful, but it's a starting point. Opera, though not free, also warrants a try for the same reason. It tends to perform quite well on older and embedded platforms. That said, the first thing I'd try is installing FlashBlock and ad blocking plugins on your existing Firefox install. That generally does the trick for me, on these older machines. It's not the browser but the poorly designed/over-designed flash ads that tend to cause the vast majority of the problem. Of course, there's always Lynx if the above doesn't work. Sean Crago Kathmandu, Nepal

6 11

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG