OT but very useful...
 

http://www.thetornado.com/backup_files.asp

I was rummaging through Staples store last night looking for a cable when I
stumbled upon this gadget they are dumping for $20, so I bought one.

This is a really neat device that VERY rapidly will copy files between two
Windows PCs by simply plugging the self-retracting cords between their USB
ports. Inside the device, a little computer tells the PCs to run a file
manager program built right into the device. Once it boots, all you do is
drag and drop files or whole directories of files or groups of files from
one computer's file list to the other on the Tornado file manager....it's
that easy!

A 700MB DivX movie takes about half a minute to copy if you have USB 2.0
ports on both machine. That's REALLY quite fast.

The other nice thing is you don't have to set the PCs for file sharing
exposing the files to any other machines. This is local-only control
separate from any network. It's the perfect way to load up your laptop
with music/movies/stuff from your home computer to carry to the boat.

Because the software doesn't install into Windows, it leaves no residue
files on any PC it's used on. The software only runs when the device is
plugged in. So, you can take your laptop and the Tornado to someone else's
computer and swap files with them without trashing their system in the
least bit. Need to swap files with the computer at the office...just plug
it in to your laptop and the office computer. Because the computers are
separated by the Tornado's computer in the device, there's no automatic
movement of virus/trojan bad guys between them. Only files YOU choose in
either computer's Tornado file manager are copied. Windows has no
automatic control of moving files through the Tornado...no funny business.

Check your Staples store to see if they're dumping it....$20 is cheap!

OT but very useful...
 

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:11 +0000, Larry wrote:

This is a really neat device that VERY rapidly will copy files between two
Windows PCs by simply plugging the self-retracting cords between their USB
ports. Inside the device, a little computer tells the PCs to run a file
manager program built right into the device. Once it boots, all you do is
drag and drop files or whole directories of files or groups of files from
one computer's file list to the other on the Tornado file manager....it's
that easy!

For the price of a $4 ethernet crossover cable you can do the same
thing at 100 mb/sec.

OT but very useful...
 

Wayne.B wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:11 +0000, Larry wrote:

This is a really neat device that VERY rapidly will copy files between
two Windows PCs by simply plugging the self-retracting cords between
their USB ports. Inside the device, a little computer tells the PCs
to run a file manager program built right into the device. Once it
boots, all you do is drag and drop files or whole directories of files
or groups of files from one computer's file list to the other on the
Tornado file manager....it's that easy!

For the price of a $4 ethernet crossover cable you can do the same
thing at 100 mb/sec.



Just plug it in like an old serial port?

Hmm...I thought it would take setting up for shared files, not just plug 'n
pray....

How do you get computer 1 to treat computer 2 like it's own disk drive with
that cable??

OT but very useful...
 

Larry wrote:
Wayne.B wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:11 +0000, Larry wrote:

This is a really neat device that VERY rapidly will copy files between
two Windows PCs by simply plugging the self-retracting cords between
their USB ports. Inside the device, a little computer tells the PCs
to run a file manager program built right into the device. Once it
boots, all you do is drag and drop files or whole directories of files
or groups of files from one computer's file list to the other on the
Tornado file manager....it's that easy!
For the price of a $4 ethernet crossover cable you can do the same
thing at 100 mb/sec.



Just plug it in like an old serial port?

Hmm...I thought it would take setting up for shared files, not just plug 'n
pray....

How do you get computer 1 to treat computer 2 like it's own disk drive with
that cable??

You don't. You need to set up shares on both computers and then treat
each like a node on a LAN.

OT but very useful...
 

slide wrote in
:

Larry wrote:
Wayne.B wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:11 +0000, Larry wrote:

This is a really neat device that VERY rapidly will copy files
between two Windows PCs by simply plugging the self-retracting
cords between their USB ports. Inside the device, a little
computer tells the PCs to run a file manager program built right
into the device. Once it boots, all you do is drag and drop files
or whole directories of files or groups of files from one
computer's file list to the other on the Tornado file
manager....it's that easy!
For the price of a $4 ethernet crossover cable you can do the same
thing at 100 mb/sec.



Just plug it in like an old serial port?

Hmm...I thought it would take setting up for shared files, not just
plug 'n pray....

How do you get computer 1 to treat computer 2 like it's own disk
drive with that cable??

You don't. You need to set up shares on both computers and then treat
each like a node on a LAN.


And file sharing has been hacked into again and again....

File sharing should NEVER be setup to share the whole drive...exactly
what this device does in complete safety without all that networking
setup monstrosity nonsense. You simply plug it in and the Tornado file
managers boot on both machines. You can use either one as they are all
bi-directional between them. it simply makes it so easy....

OT but very useful...
 

Vic Smith wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:11 +0000, Larry wrote:

http://www.thetornado.com/backup_files.asp

I was rummaging through Staples store last night looking for a cable
when I stumbled upon this gadget they are dumping for $20, so I bought
one.

Flash drives are getting pretty cheap. Do you know about them?
My kid has one on his key chain, and sometimes we exchange data.
Think it's 4gb, but they're up to at least 64gb now.
He got it for 5 bucks or it was a free promo, can't remember.
He has a few of them.
It's a slower transfer since you have 2 read/write cycles, but also
more flexible because you don't need the computers in proximity.
I'd go that way for non-networked data transfers, or get an external
USB hard drive. He has some of them too.
The speed issue is easily fixed by not using a stop-watch.
Or getting a beer while the data moves.
Computers are like kitchens - always another gadget.
You sound like a real shopper, Larry.
Used to do that myself. Until I saw how much junk I had laying
around.

--Vic


The house is full of my "stuff"....piled all over...(c;]

It keeps me from being married again....a real benefit.

Tornado moves files 6 times faster than writing to a flash drive. If
you consider you have to copy it from the flash drive to the other
computer after you flash it, that's 12 times as fast....a real time
saver!

Flash drives and SD cards are awfully slow to write to. They read much
better than they write.

OT but very useful...
 

Larry wrote in news:Xns9BCEE60F8D17Bnoonehomecom@
74.209.131.13:

You don't. You need to set up shares on both computers and then treat
each like a node on a LAN.


What's great about usenet is all the heat you get from the simplest of
pointing something neat out to the masses....

One word can start a flamewar that goes on, ad nauseum, for months, even
years!

OT but very useful...
 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:36:57 +0000, Larry wrote:

And file sharing has been hacked into again and again....

File sharing should NEVER be setup to share the whole drive...exactly
what this device does in complete safety without all that networking
setup monstrosity nonsense.

You don't share the entire drive, just one directory (but you know
that). The setup is extremely simple for anyone who understands the
first thing about networking.

OT but very useful...
 

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:11 +0000, Larry wrote:

http://www.thetornado.com/backup_files.asp

I was rummaging through Staples store last night looking for a cable when I
stumbled upon this gadget they are dumping for $20, so I bought one.

Flash drives are getting pretty cheap. Do you know about them?
My kid has one on his key chain, and sometimes we exchange data.
Think it's 4gb, but they're up to at least 64gb now.
He got it for 5 bucks or it was a free promo, can't remember.
He has a few of them.
It's a slower transfer since you have 2 read/write cycles, but also
more flexible because you don't need the computers in proximity.
I'd go that way for non-networked data transfers, or get an external
USB hard drive. He has some of them too.
The speed issue is easily fixed by not using a stop-watch.
Or getting a beer while the data moves.
Computers are like kitchens - always another gadget.
You sound like a real shopper, Larry.
Used to do that myself. Until I saw how much junk I had laying
around.

--Vic

OT but very useful...
 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:39:43 +0000, Larry wrote:



Tornado moves files 6 times faster than writing to a flash drive. If
you consider you have to copy it from the flash drive to the other
computer after you flash it, that's 12 times as fast....a real time
saver!

That's perfectly good beer drinking time you're trying to eliminate.
Think long and hard about what you're doing there.
A couple beers while cogitating will keep you from thinking too
straight, and get you out of the time box.
If you don't drink beer, just read a book.
But not one titled "Paradigms of Disk Read/Write and Data Transfer
Speed (and Implications for Video Transfers) "
Maybe something by Henry James, so you can sleep while the stuff is
moving.

--Vic

OT but very useful...
 

Wayne.B wrote in
:

You don't share the entire drive, just one directory (but you know
that). The setup is extremely simple for anyone who understands the
first thing about networking.




But it's absurd. You have to move files into the shared drive, or copy
them to be sure they are not destroyed........

Then, you have to screw around networked to download them.......

Then, you have to screw around erasing them in the shared directory.....

This gadget eliminates all this networked nonsense!

End of discussion.....

OT but very useful...
 

Larry wrote:
http://www.thetornado.com/backup_files.asp

I was rummaging through Staples store last night looking for a cable when I
stumbled upon this gadget they are dumping for $20, so I bought one.

This is a really neat device that VERY rapidly will copy files between two
Windows PCs by simply plugging the self-retracting cords between their USB
ports. Inside the device, a little computer tells the PCs to run a file
manager program built right into the device. Once it boots, all you do is
drag and drop files or whole directories of files or groups of files from
one computer's file list to the other on the Tornado file manager....it's
that easy!

A 700MB DivX movie takes about half a minute to copy if you have USB 2.0
ports on both machine. That's REALLY quite fast.

The other nice thing is you don't have to set the PCs for file sharing
exposing the files to any other machines. This is local-only control
separate from any network. It's the perfect way to load up your laptop
with music/movies/stuff from your home computer to carry to the boat.

Because the software doesn't install into Windows, it leaves no residue
files on any PC it's used on. The software only runs when the device is
plugged in. So, you can take your laptop and the Tornado to someone else's
computer and swap files with them without trashing their system in the
least bit. Need to swap files with the computer at the office...just plug
it in to your laptop and the office computer. Because the computers are
separated by the Tornado's computer in the device, there's no automatic
movement of virus/trojan bad guys between them. Only files YOU choose in
either computer's Tornado file manager are copied. Windows has no
automatic control of moving files through the Tornado...no funny business.

Check your Staples store to see if they're dumping it....$20 is cheap!


I've been using one of those things for quite a while now. I use
it to connect my laptop to my workstation. Both are networked,
but the USB thingy is SO easy to use. Mine is made by ATEN and
it is called a "Laptop USB KVM Switch". You just plug it in and
it works. It's like a KVM switch but it has a file transfer
application. I believe I paid more than $20 for it.

Nice tip.
--

Larry in NH
rapp at lmr dot com

OT but very useful...
 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:15:43 -0400, Larry wrote:

Larry wrote:
http://www.thetornado.com/backup_files.asp

I was rummaging through Staples store last night looking for a cable when I
stumbled upon this gadget they are dumping for $20, so I bought one.

This is a really neat device that VERY rapidly will copy files between two
Windows PCs by simply plugging the self-retracting cords between their USB
ports. Inside the device, a little computer tells the PCs to run a file
manager program built right into the device. Once it boots, all you do is
drag and drop files or whole directories of files or groups of files from
one computer's file list to the other on the Tornado file manager....it's
that easy!

A 700MB DivX movie takes about half a minute to copy if you have USB 2.0
ports on both machine. That's REALLY quite fast.

The other nice thing is you don't have to set the PCs for file sharing
exposing the files to any other machines. This is local-only control
separate from any network. It's the perfect way to load up your laptop
with music/movies/stuff from your home computer to carry to the boat.

Because the software doesn't install into Windows, it leaves no residue
files on any PC it's used on. The software only runs when the device is
plugged in. So, you can take your laptop and the Tornado to someone else's
computer and swap files with them without trashing their system in the
least bit. Need to swap files with the computer at the office...just plug
it in to your laptop and the office computer. Because the computers are
separated by the Tornado's computer in the device, there's no automatic
movement of virus/trojan bad guys between them. Only files YOU choose in
either computer's Tornado file manager are copied. Windows has no
automatic control of moving files through the Tornado...no funny business.

Check your Staples store to see if they're dumping it....$20 is cheap!


I've been using one of those things for quite a while now. I use
it to connect my laptop to my workstation. Both are networked,
but the USB thingy is SO easy to use. Mine is made by ATEN and
it is called a "Laptop USB KVM Switch". You just plug it in and
it works. It's like a KVM switch but it has a file transfer
application. I believe I paid more than $20 for it.

Nice tip.


Am I correct in thinking that this works only with Windows? I ask as I
am using Linux and while I could go to the trouble of setting a
network your magic cable sounds easier.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
:

Am I correct in thinking that this works only with Windows? I ask as I
am using Linux and while I could go to the trouble of setting a
network your magic cable sounds easier.



Sorry, Bruce. One model is for Windows to Windows. The other model they
make if from Windows to Mac. No Linux support...as usual.

OT but very useful...
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
:

Am I correct in thinking that this works only with Windows? I ask as I
am using Linux and while I could go to the trouble of setting a
network your magic cable sounds easier.



Sorry, Bruce. One model is for Windows to Windows. The other model they
make if from Windows to Mac. No Linux support...as usual.

Larry
Have you tried SyncToy?
I use it for my music file backup/s
Hoges in WA

OT but very useful...
 

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:24:09 +0000, Larry wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
:

Am I correct in thinking that this works only with Windows? I ask as I
am using Linux and while I could go to the trouble of setting a
network your magic cable sounds easier.



Sorry, Bruce. One model is for Windows to Windows. The other model they
make if from Windows to Mac. No Linux support...as usual.


Ah well, I can console myself by repeating the Linux Mantra, "Linux is
better, Linux is better......"
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:10:44 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:


Ah well, I can console myself by repeating the Linux Mantra, "Linux is
better, Linux is better......"

Hehe. That works for some.

--Vic

OT but very useful...
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:24:09 +0000, Larry wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
m:

Am I correct in thinking that this works only with Windows? I ask as I
am using Linux and while I could go to the trouble of setting a
network your magic cable sounds easier.



Sorry, Bruce. One model is for Windows to Windows. The other model they
make if from Windows to Mac. No Linux support...as usual.


Ah well, I can console myself by repeating the Linux Mantra, "Linux is
better, Linux is better......"
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce, I was talking to an IT guy last night about Linux as we have Linux on
disc but have not yet loaded and experimented with it.
He told me there is a programme called 'wine' which allows Windows
programmes to run on Linux.
I have not fully checked it out yet but you can get the site by Googling
'wine'+Windows+Linux and check it out yourself.
Don't Google 'wine' on its own as you can guess what sort of stuff will come
up!

OT but very useful...
 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:57:51 +0100, "Edgar"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:24:09 +0000, Larry wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
:

Am I correct in thinking that this works only with Windows? I ask as I
am using Linux and while I could go to the trouble of setting a
network your magic cable sounds easier.



Sorry, Bruce. One model is for Windows to Windows. The other model they
make if from Windows to Mac. No Linux support...as usual.


Ah well, I can console myself by repeating the Linux Mantra, "Linux is
better, Linux is better......"
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce, I was talking to an IT guy last night about Linux as we have Linux on
disc but have not yet loaded and experimented with it.
He told me there is a programme called 'wine' which allows Windows
programmes to run on Linux.
I have not fully checked it out yet but you can get the site by Googling
'wine'+Windows+Linux and check it out yourself.
Don't Google 'wine' on its own as you can guess what sort of stuff will come
up!
Yes, Wine is an "emulator" that effectively mimics the entire Windows
operating environment and allows *some* Windows to be run from Linux.
In fact I am running this copy of Forte Agent using Wine.

However, it is not a cure-all and every Windows application does not
work well using it. In addition it, being an emulator, takes
significant system resources and a native application would be
preferable. Linux, of course offers applications to network both Linux
and Windows so syncing various files can be done with little fuss. I
was just hoping to get by with no fuss :-)

By the way, most of the current "versions" of Linux can easily be
installed on the same disk as a Windows installation - assuming that
there is physical space and Ubuntu is probably the most friendly
version with 8.10 being (I believe) the latest version issued.

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:54:34 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

All well and good but what is the advantage in trying to make Linux
look like Windows when it is so easy to dual boot into a true Windows
environment? All this nonsense about Windows being unrelaible is
just that. I have Windows machines that stay up for 6 months or more
without a single crash or reboot. Resource usage is also a non-issue
when you can get quad-core machines with 4 GB of memory and 1 TB hard
disks for very reasonable prices.

OT but very useful...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:54:34 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

All well and good but what is the advantage in trying to make Linux
look like Windows when it is so easy to dual boot into a true Windows
environment? All this nonsense about Windows being unrelaible is
just that. I have Windows machines that stay up for 6 months or more
without a single crash or reboot. Resource usage is also a non-issue
when you can get quad-core machines with 4 GB of memory and 1 TB hard
disks for very reasonable prices.



Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OT but very useful...
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Likewise. WinXP sp2 running on a "several years old" HP Pentium4 running at
a snail's pace of 2.53ghz and limping along with 1 gb memory. But it gets me
by, and stays running 24/7 hardly ever being rebooted. From time to time I
do some disk maintenance and cleanup, that's about it. XP has been very
stable on this machine.

OT but very useful...
 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:16:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

My machines don't update unless I request it, which is not often.

OT but very useful...
 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:06:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:54:34 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

All well and good but what is the advantage in trying to make Linux
look like Windows when it is so easy to dual boot into a true Windows
environment? All this nonsense about Windows being unrelaible is
just that. I have Windows machines that stay up for 6 months or more
without a single crash or reboot. Resource usage is also a non-issue
when you can get quad-core machines with 4 GB of memory and 1 TB hard
disks for very reasonable prices.

Not sure what you are responding to but many people are reluctant to,
or aren't familiar, with installing Linux and mistakenly believe that
installing the new system automatically destroys the old. I was merely
pointing out that it isn't necessarily so.

No one is trying to make Linux look like Windows... don't know where
that comment came from. Nor, the "nonsense about Windows not being
reliable" as neither the OP nor myself discussed that.

I have been listening to similar comments to your "Resource usage is
also a non-issue" for something like 20 years now. I can remember when
a BIG mainframe had an astounding 64K of core memory. Now video cards
have more then that. In a couple of years your amazing quad-4 with
its miserly 4 G memory and your TB of disk is going to be referred to
as a "legacy machine" and another guy will be talking about his 64
core with the multi-TB of ram.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:16:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:54:34 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

All well and good but what is the advantage in trying to make Linux
look like Windows when it is so easy to dual boot into a true Windows
environment? All this nonsense about Windows being unrelaible is
just that. I have Windows machines that stay up for 6 months or more
without a single crash or reboot. Resource usage is also a non-issue
when you can get quad-core machines with 4 GB of memory and 1 TB hard
disks for very reasonable prices.



Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

My theory is if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I use a ten year old
version of Agent.

Casady

OT but very useful...
 

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:27:49 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

No one is trying to make Linux look like Windows... don't know where
that comment came from. Nor, the "nonsense about Windows not being
reliable" as neither the OP nor myself discussed that.

No offense intended, just pointing out/debunking some of the reasons I
hear from people who persist in running Linux on their PCs for one
reason or another. The list usually goes something like this:

1. Windows is not reliable (frequent crashes).

2. Windows uses too many resources.

3. I don't like Bill Gates.

4. Micrsoft is an evil empire.

5. Windows could never understand my inner creativity and genius
(also used by incurable Apple users).

6. Linux is free.

All in good fun of course... :-)

OT but very useful...
 

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:32:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:


1. Windows is not reliable (frequent crashes).

At one time this was true. Perhaps you don't remember the Blue Screen of
Death?

2. Windows uses too many resources.

Well, Linux has kept many older computers from filling up landfills. I
use an old P1 as a dedicated router/firewall.

3. I don't like Bill Gates.

Never met the man, so I can't say, but how many people use Windows
because they like Bill Gates?

4. Micrsoft is an evil empire.

In many ways it is. Ever here of the Microsoft Tax? If it bit you, I
don't think you would like it.

http://www.linfo.org/microsoft_tax.html

5. Windows could never understand my inner creativity and genius (also
used by incurable Apple users).

Oh well, us geniuses are never understood. ;-)

6. Linux is free.

Something wrong with that? But I don't use Linux because it's free. Due
to the above MS tax, I have copies of most MS OS including Vista, funny
but I never use them, ever.

Look, I prefer Linux, you don't, so what? I'm not trying to cram Linux
down your throat. I just wish Microsoft would stop trying to cram their
product down my throat.

OT but very useful...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:16:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

My machines don't update unless I request it, which is not often.



You're missing out on various security fixes and program updates.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OT but very useful...
 

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:32:07 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:27:49 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

No one is trying to make Linux look like Windows... don't know where
that comment came from. Nor, the "nonsense about Windows not being
reliable" as neither the OP nor myself discussed that.

No offense intended, just pointing out/debunking some of the reasons I
hear from people who persist in running Linux on their PCs for one
reason or another. The list usually goes something like this:

1. Windows is not reliable (frequent crashes).

2. Windows uses too many resources.

3. I don't like Bill Gates.

4. Micrsoft is an evil empire.

5. Windows could never understand my inner creativity and genius
(also used by incurable Apple users).

6. Linux is free.

All in good fun of course... :-)

One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.

I recently asked about the availability of an memory based dictionary
and thesaurus and got told that Open Office had a dictionary... I
already knew hat OO had a dictionary and I suppose that had I said
that I would have been castigated for not using OO.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
:

One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.



They sound like Apple fanbois. iPhone fanbois are a rabid group,
too....great fun to pick on, though...(c;]

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:28:37 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


I recently asked about the availability of an memory based dictionary
and thesaurus

What do you mean by "memory based"? There is dict, which is a network
dictionary protocol. Setting up a server on your machine is a piece of
cake, and there are quite a few dictionaries to go with it. Or, you
could use dict.org.

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:28:37 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:


One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.

I never bothered with Linux because I'm a gamer and Linux is plain
inadequate.
Besides that, since I consider writing software as paid work, it never
struck me as "efficient" to be required to work to get an OS operating
and running apps I paid for in expectation they run out of the box.
Aside from the gaming inadequacy, much comes down to individual
inclination to tinker and accept risk.
Remember "IBM compatible" and "Hayes compatible"?
Always followed those "standards" when they were in effect, and never
experienced the endless futzing around and plain inoperability
suffered by others. Not worth saving a few bucks to me.
MS is my OS standard. Pretty painless.
And widely "discounted."
I don't miss autoexec.bat and config.sys files either.
Been through all those wringers, and spent my lifetime allocation
of hours wasted playing with software configurations.
But I have no problem with folks playing with and tweaking Linux.
They have their reasons. Good enough for me.
If it gets good enough for Microsoft to license it, I would consider
using it.

--Vic

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:36:40 -0600, someone posting asVic Smith
purportedly wrote:


I never bothered with Linux because I'm a gamer and Linux is plain
inadequate.

then you probably haven't "bothered" with Linux in 6 or 7 years, as to
gaming, there are devices for that purpose yes? Perhaps an XBox or a
PlagueStation would be more your type of tool?

Besides that, since I consider writing software as paid work, it never
struck me as "efficient" to be required to work to get an OS operating
and running apps I paid for in expectation they run out of the box.

two things; first Linux is free, second you don't even know what a "live
CD" is do you. If putting a cd into a drive and turning a computer on
qualifies as "work", then perhaps a computer is too complicated a device
for you.

Aside from the gaming inadequacy, much comes down to individual
inclination to tinker and accept risk.

are you talking about the inherent risk in attaching a Windows computer
to the Internet? Or "tinkering" with Vista to get it to recognize your
two year old peripherals?

Remember "IBM compatible" and
"Hayes compatible"? Always followed those "standards" when they were in
effect, and never experienced the endless futzing around and plain
inoperability suffered by others.

FUD, when those terms were current, those were the _only_ standards.

Not worth saving a few bucks to me.
MS is my OS standard. Pretty painless. And widely "discounted."

and rightly so... take www.cert.org for instance...no shortage of isses
there, but you keep on keepin' on there painless...crackers _love_ the
sheeple

I don't miss autoexec.bat and config.sys files either. Been through all
those wringers, and spent my lifetime allocation of hours wasted playing
with software configurations. But I have no problem with folks playing
with and tweaking Linux. They have their reasons. Good enough for me.

If it gets good enough for Microsoft to license it, I would consider
using it.

you really have no idea how funny that last line is

--
life's too short to play quietly...crank it up!

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:51:07 +0000, Larry wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
:

One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.



They sound like Apple fanbois. iPhone fanbois are a rabid group,
too....great fun to pick on, though...(c;]

The last Apple I had was an Apple ][ so I am not up to speed on the
subject but I know that the Apple users can be a loyal bunch - a
friend is a Civil Engineering consultant on a project in Taiwan. He
gets all the drawings in Auto-Cad format and has to use some sort of
translator so that he can view them on his Apple lap-top. I asked him
why not get a Windows machine for the project and got a 30 minute
lecture about Apples...

Me, I use whatever works.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:58:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:28:37 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


I recently asked about the availability of an memory based dictionary
and thesaurus

What do you mean by "memory based"? There is dict, which is a network
dictionary protocol. Setting up a server on your machine is a piece of
cake, and there are quite a few dictionaries to go with it. Or, you
could use dict.org.

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

The dictionary that comes with several versions of Linux is
"Dictionary 2.20.0.1 copyright Emmanuel Bassi" doesn't seem to have a
database of words. Each time you ask for a definition it accesses the
web which of course takes time. In addition it assumes that you are
always connected to the Internet, which I am not.

I spent most of an afternoon searching for a decent disk based
dictionary and downloaded several that seemed to have good
recommendations. Of course being Linux they were source and every one
I tried refused to compile as my Gnome based machine lacked some
dependency or another.

www.dict.org suffers from the same problem - won't work unless you are
attached to the Internet.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:36:40 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:28:37 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:


One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.

I never bothered with Linux because I'm a gamer and Linux is plain
inadequate.
Besides that, since I consider writing software as paid work, it never
struck me as "efficient" to be required to work to get an OS operating
and running apps I paid for in expectation they run out of the box.
Aside from the gaming inadequacy, much comes down to individual
inclination to tinker and accept risk.
Remember "IBM compatible" and "Hayes compatible"?
Always followed those "standards" when they were in effect, and never
experienced the endless futzing around and plain inoperability
suffered by others. Not worth saving a few bucks to me.
MS is my OS standard. Pretty painless.
And widely "discounted."
I don't miss autoexec.bat and config.sys files either.
Been through all those wringers, and spent my lifetime allocation
of hours wasted playing with software configurations.
But I have no problem with folks playing with and tweaking Linux.
They have their reasons. Good enough for me.
If it gets good enough for Microsoft to license it, I would consider
using it.

--Vic

I use Linux and it is adequate for most of my needs but it certainly
isn't the be all, end all, of the computing world. On the other hand I
tried Vista and abandoned that after one day and my Windows machines
are running XP and will unless windows 7 turns out to be better then
the Alpha versions look to be.

I've even got some DOS programs left that I use from time to time.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:18:39 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


The dictionary that comes with several versions of Linux is "Dictionary
2.20.0.1 copyright Emmanuel Bassi" doesn't seem to have a database of
words. Each time you ask for a definition it accesses the web which of
course takes time. In addition it assumes that you are always connected
to the Internet, which I am not.

I spent most of an afternoon searching for a decent disk based
dictionary and downloaded several that seemed to have good
recommendations. Of course being Linux they were source and every one I
tried refused to compile as my Gnome based machine lacked some
dependency or another.

www.dict.org suffers from the same problem - won't work unless you are
attached to the Internet.

What distribution are you using? You can do what I do. I run a dictd
server on one of my LAN machines, and add the dictionaries I need there.
It's all local so I don't need to be connected to the Internet. Or, you
can run the server on the machine you are using, as I do on my laptop.

I have a dict client, but I usually just use a CGI script that I access
from within my browser. If you tell me what distribution you are using,
I might be able to set you up.

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:44:56 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:18:39 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


The dictionary that comes with several versions of Linux is "Dictionary
2.20.0.1 copyright Emmanuel Bassi" doesn't seem to have a database of
words. Each time you ask for a definition it accesses the web which of
course takes time. In addition it assumes that you are always connected
to the Internet, which I am not.

I spent most of an afternoon searching for a decent disk based
dictionary and downloaded several that seemed to have good
recommendations. Of course being Linux they were source and every one I
tried refused to compile as my Gnome based machine lacked some
dependency or another.

www.dict.org suffers from the same problem - won't work unless you are
attached to the Internet.

What distribution are you using? You can do what I do. I run a dictd
server on one of my LAN machines, and add the dictionaries I need there.
It's all local so I don't need to be connected to the Internet. Or, you
can run the server on the machine you are using, as I do on my laptop.

Using several. Ubuntu 8.04 on a Dell in the boat, "Easy Peasy" a
subset of Ubuntu 8.10 on a Asus Eee for a travel computer and Fedora
on a couple of desktops.

I have a dict client, but I usually just use a CGI script that I access
from within my browser. If you tell me what distribution you are using,
I might be able to set you up.

What I want is a simple disk based dictionary - type the word, hit
return and get a description. Seemed simple enough, I had a program
called Word Web running in Windows that even had a hot key to activate
it. Good database of words.

Seemed like a simple problem, but the more I looked the more problems
I had. I found a lot of applications on sourceforge but most of them
wouldn't compile as apparently I don't have the right lib files. I
fought that problem a few hours and finally gave up, at least for a
while. The last straw was a program that demanded a lib file that was
outdated, something like lib.6.0 and all I had, or could find, was
lib.10.0 and it wouldn't work.

I'm down on the boat for a while and will live with what I've got but
when I get back home I'll get after it again.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:00:40 -0500, "mr.b" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:36:40 -0600, someone posting asVic Smith
purportedly wrote:


I never bothered with Linux because I'm a gamer and Linux is plain
inadequate.

then you probably haven't "bothered" with Linux in 6 or 7 years, as to
gaming, there are devices for that purpose yes? Perhaps an XBox or a
PlagueStation would be more your type of tool?

Just as you don't do MS, I don't do console games.
Can't we all just get along?

Besides that, since I consider writing software as paid work, it never
struck me as "efficient" to be required to work to get an OS operating
and running apps I paid for in expectation they run out of the box.

two things; first Linux is free, second you don't even know what a "live
CD" is do you. If putting a cd into a drive and turning a computer on
qualifies as "work", then perhaps a computer is too complicated a device
for you.

Well, why would I fool around with a free "live CD" OS when it won't
allow me to execute my $50 game?
Sounds like I would lose about 50 bucks doing that kind of thing.
BTW, I'm not the one scouring the net looking for fixes.
I noticed this from Bruce in this thread:
"I spent most of an afternoon searching for a decent disk based
dictionary and downloaded several that seemed to have good
recommendations. Of course being Linux they were source and every one
I tried refused to compile as my Gnome based machine lacked some
dependency or another."

Since I instantly recognize this as a needless complexity I reject
outright for non-paid activity, you may be right about me and
"complicated."
But I must say I have no difficulty with computers.
I did get paid for many years to deal with source code, assemblers and
compilers and even object code in hex representation.
Luck, no doubt. Fooled the suckers into paying me.
And after all, there are more than 10 ways to skin a cat.
There is an African tribe that inserts plates into their lips to
elongate them to tremendous proportions.
Do you hear me being critical of them?
Of course not. They have their customs.
I respect that.
And I refrain from being critical of Linux users also.
Very easy to get along with.

Aside from the gaming inadequacy, much comes down to individual
inclination to tinker and accept risk.

are you talking about the inherent risk in attaching a Windows computer
to the Internet? Or "tinkering" with Vista to get it to recognize your
two year old peripherals?

Search the internet for "linux vulnerabilities."

Remember "IBM compatible" and
"Hayes compatible"? Always followed those "standards" when they were in
effect, and never experienced the endless futzing around and plain
inoperability suffered by others.

FUD, when those terms were current, those were the _only_ standards.

And some didn't follow them. You probably weren't around then.
There are always dimestore hardware/software solutions.
I've repaired many of them.
Not saying Linux is dimestore, of course. Don't mean to imply that.
Just wouldn't do that. No way.
I AM NOT A MIRCROSOFT SNOB!!!!!!
I love the idea of Linux.
Because I'm so very idealistic.

Not worth saving a few bucks to me.
MS is my OS standard. Pretty painless. And widely "discounted."

and rightly so... take www.cert.org for instance...no shortage of isses
there, but you keep on keepin' on there painless...crackers _love_ the
sheeple

Not quite sure what all that means. Can you link it up with the
Trilateral Commission and the International Zionist Conspiracy to help
me out with context?

I don't miss autoexec.bat and config.sys files either. Been through all
those wringers, and spent my lifetime allocation of hours wasted playing
with software configurations. But I have no problem with folks playing
with and tweaking Linux. They have their reasons. Good enough for me.

If it gets good enough for Microsoft to license it, I would consider
using it.

you really have no idea how funny that last line is

Yes, just as there was no idea put into the composing of it.
Wayne, want to take over here?
Hey, only kidding.
I just want to get along with everybody.
Really.

--Vic

OT but very useful...
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:15:56 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:



Seemed like a simple problem, but the more I looked the more problems
I had. I found a lot of applications on sourceforge but most of them
wouldn't compile as apparently I don't have the right lib files. I
fought that problem a few hours and finally gave up, at least for a
while. The last straw was a program that demanded a lib file that was
outdated, something like lib.6.0 and all I had, or could find, was
lib.10.0 and it wouldn't work.

I'm down on the boat for a while and will live with what I've got but
when I get back home I'll get after it again.

Sounds like a plan, Bruce. Probably won't take more than a few more
days work - this week, anyway.
I admire your stick-to-it-iveness.
Have fun!

--Vic