Getting high, and the Linux environment

Lol, only if you want to be frozen

It is an analog of THC kinda. Meaning its THC with a slightly different chemical structure. This is 100% legal stuff at the moment. You might want to look in the synthetic drugs sub-forum. All sorts of interesting stuff in their.

 

Codmouse, I saw that thread about the virus on the Rainbow site, and you mentioning Leopard, and BSD.

Tell me, do you think it's worth my while doing linux, or spending time on BSD? or does it matter?

 

leopard is based off of BSD. BSD is okay to learn too, but its pretty limited. The audio software you want wont work there and the cool freestyle OS stuff is pretty limited.

Learning linux will make it where you will know BSD in general. I don't suggest you learn BSD at all. Its almost the same kernel but more secure. I wouldn't bother.

I use mac because its more supported than linux. I got tired of always messing with it. I don't have as much free time and my job is working on computers, so I wanted to stop fixing them. Thats why I bought a mac. I was just saying how BSD is extremely safe. and how mac is based off of BSD but isn't bsd.

Look at all this this way
In the beginning there was
DOS (Different flavors of DOS include MS DOS)
and UNIX (Different flavors of unix include BSD and linux)

Windows programmed a visual OS off of MS DOS

Linux is just a free clone of unix
BSD is a secure networking OS made by Berkeley based off unix (all of these still command line)

Now in order for you to have desktops and stuff, you need KDE and X11. You install KDE on a UNIX or LINUX machine like a program. (making it safer, if the desktop crashes then the system is still up. Not in windows, if the desktop crashes it all goes down)

KDE works on BSD because it is similar to UNIX, BUT it needs to be a different kind of KDE. UNIX programs don't work on BSD.

MAC made a visual OS off of the safest OS at the time, BSD. Kind of like a flavor of BSD. Not everything works on mac (leopard) as on BSD.

FREEBSD (like linux, a clone of BSD but free) is a visual OS.

Am I making sense? tell me if I am loosing you.

 

First OS (all command line) - Second OS (visual) second is based off of the first

BSD - Leopard Macintosh

DOS - Windows

UNIX - Linux

Remember how DOS used to be in windows? Well they just hid it now. Linux and Leopard still have those command line options.

 

Sure,,I understand. My older son (34 now) is an IT specialist, with his own business. He's not very free with the information though, since he's so busy running his business. He just doesn't have the time to do tutoring on the side.

I used to program in Sinclair Basic,,haha,,

Then, I tried Atari Basic, on the Atari 800XL (which I still own,,an 8 bit system with 64 megs of ram and an external 5" floppy drive).

I wanted to buy a Mac, didn't have the money, back in, say the early nineties. I was actually going to buy a Mac system on my wife's student status, at the local college bookstore, on what was called an "Apple loan", and spend maybe 9,000 dollars on a system. So glad I didn't. My son in law, an ex-Marine with a business degree, got a couple of Acer Aspires with '95 on them, and gave us one. That was around '96.

My older son, then, came up to speed, and began building our systems for us. He had more time back then. So, I'm still using the W2000 P4 system that he built me back around "the turn of the century". I've just been toying with the idea of upgrading the OS to XP, but then I gave Linux some thought, just for the sake of learning something new and streamlining the older computer.

But I've always wanted to understand more about how they work, in order to free myself of dependency. Nowdays, any kind of problem I have, I google, and read, and read, and read.

But W2000 has been very reliable, yet relatively slow (compared to the dual processor AMD XP system my younger son uses downstairs), and only because of the bloatware, I suspect. I'm running progs for Adware, Spyware, and AV, which eat up processor time, and then all whatever I have installed. Plus, I'm only using 512megs of RAM, which I just upgraded from 256. I'm sure that could be improved on for another speed boost.

But I tend to drag my feet, in favor of a stable, but perhaps slow, system. Yet the relative slowness does bother me at times. I'm not always certain if it's the cable connection flipping out on us, or just processes running in the background, eating up CPU time.

I'm a patient man, but I also like to tinker, to optimize things periodically.

I've used DOS infrequently, to PING or TRACERT, or IPCONFIG, but am not entirely familiar with its vocabulary or syntax. My IT son uses command lines very adoitly, however.

And finally, being a retiree on a limited budget, I'm looking for the least costly options. That's always a factor.

Thanks for your help, and your time.

 

Oh, and I also took a class at the local community college in chip architecture once. It centered on the "8088" chip, and some focus on assembly language. That went nowhere, because I was working as an electrician, a pretty unrelated field, and it paid well enough to demand more of my attention at that time. I just wasn't ready to take a cut in pay to go into another, somewhat unrelated field of study.

 

8088? :rofl: You ARE old! hahaha. I think you should go for it, pclinuxos is the one for you!

You did some interesting stuff in your day. Kind of part of the pioneers of computers in my view. Pretty cool indeed.

Be sure to tell me what you chose and did though. I am interested

 

That hardware is pretty dated, how much RAM do you have?

You might want to consider something other than KDE or Gnome. Windows 2000 is a pretty lightweight and fast OS, you might actually slow the system down if you moved to a KDE/Gnome based distro.

 

Possibly. Not if he removes the bells and whistles... He isn't using a the 8088 now, that was a class.

A P4 with 512mb of ram will most definitely do the trick. That system will run it beautifully.