SherLok Merfy wrote:
My computer says "Designed for Windows NT and 98" and I don't even believe that. (If I did, then I wouldn't hav tried Linux). As far as I'm concerned it was designed for DOS and Win3.1, which would be a bit nicer if MicroSoft's Win32s would install again (because I can quit from it without rebooting the machine).
God, I long for the days of Win 3.1. I had to upgrade from my old flintlock 486/80 to a Win 98 PII so I could run Java and burn CDs. I hoped I would adjust to the '95 and subsequent limitations and quirks, but still:
The Java is part of Opera 3.62 that I run. Burning? I use XCDRoast to burn CDs that are MS-DOS compatible. This much I can do with Linux, but I'm still not using Linux for the internet, which I imagine to be a shame, but I like Pine and Lynx on the remote AIX for performance over a phone line.
So you can access your AIX setup remotely from a LInux box, too.
Neither supports the 2gig of virtual memory I can use under Linux, and neither works as a disk cache when I'm not using the RAM, but most of the time I don't need more than 64meg. I might get around to a full transition to Linux (i.e. buy a PPP account and start using it as such as well as learning the Gimp and a front end for TeX), but I've been too busy with more basic matters to hope for getting around to that before the winter.
Gee, my Linux boxes hook up just fine through my cable modem ... ;-) David gnome@hawaii.rr.com