KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

3239 discussions

wireless cards for laptop
by curt 07 Jan '06

07 Jan '06

Hi All, I've been searching for info on supported pcmcia wireless cards for my laptop. A Thinkpad T23... As yet I have found little info other than some comments regarding the chipset. I would really prefer to simply purchase a card, plug it in and be done with it. The problem seems to be that no manufacturer seems forthcoming with chipset info. Can someone suggest a card that they have had success with and tell me the "Retail" brandname and model number? Beats the hell out of buying one, taking it home, dicovering it has an unsupported chipset, returning it and repeating the process again and again. Thanks

5 4

RE: wireless cards for laptop
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 06 Jan '06

06 Jan '06

www.linux-wlan.org/ links to a list http://www.linux-wlan.org/docs/wlan_adapters.html.gz and additional info, http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_Tourrilhes/Linux/Wireless.html and http://at76c503a.berlios.de/devices.html That's where I refer people all the time to look. -----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of curt Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: kclug(a)kclug.org Subject: wireless cards for laptop Hi All, I've been searching for info on supported pcmcia wireless cards for my laptop. A Thinkpad T23... As yet I have found little info other than some comments regarding the chipset. I would really prefer to simply purchase a card, plug it in and be done with it. The problem seems to be that no manufacturer seems forthcoming with chipset info. Can someone suggest a card that they have had success with and tell me the "Retail" brandname and model number? Beats the hell out of buying one, taking it home, dicovering it has an unsupported chipset, returning it and repeating the process again and again. Thanks _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug(a)kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

2 1

RE: Anyone have a spare machine?
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 04 Jan '06

04 Jan '06

Except for the customization that is possible. i.e. plugins -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:08 PM On Wednesday 04 January 2006 17:37, Frank Wiles wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:25:42 +0000 Luke-Jr <luke(a)dashjr.org> wrote: > > Aww, cmon. Firefox is for Windows lusers... Those of us who use > > Linux-based OS have better browsers, namely Konqueror. > > Heh that's really funny. You're the first person to call me a > Windows user in over a dozen years. :) I wasn't calling you a Windows user, I was pointing out that for a Linux user, Firefox is the equivalent to IE under Windows.

1 0

RE: Anyone have a spare machine?
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 04 Jan '06

04 Jan '06

One thing that I see that could cut down on ram useage is using all KDE-based or gnome-based apps. I found out a while back that on me system with KDE and mostly K-apps, when I launched something like X-Chat or other GTK apps, the system crawled for a bit at 384MB of ram. So I switched to Konversation for IRC. End of problem. I mostly do web-based email now, and do RSS thru my Google homepage. Some of the other stuff I don't use. A big system killer if you have ram below 1GB, is bit torrent downloads. At least as far as I can tell. I've had lockups on Linux and Windows with torrents running, IRC and Firefox with tabs open. PIII-500 with 384MB. -----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:26 AM On Wednesday 04 January 2006 17:10, Frank Wiles wrote: > which kills performance. > > Or you could just use less applications at once. Hence "Unless you use only very few applications at a time". > I run Gnome all day on a laptop with only 384 MBs of RAM. It's my primary > work station and I never run into serious performance problems. Perhaps you only do one or two things at a time and don't have on average over 50 windows open? > I typically have the following running constantly: > > *) Several ( 5 or more ) terminals I have at least that many, especially if you count each individual Konsole tab. > *) Sylpheed Obviously a good idea to have a mail app open all the time ;) > *) Firefox with several tabs Aww, cmon. Firefox is for Windows lusers... Those of us who use Linux-based OS have better browsers, namely Konqueror. > *) X-Chat This used to eat a ton of RAM on my system until I limited its scrollback buffer... > *) Gaim Not sure about Gaim, but Kopete can eat quite a bit of RAM. I like Psi's nice small footprint. > *) Lifrea How's the RAM usage here? Akregator keeps all article summaries in RAM, and is eating 52 MB right now (usually more)

1 0

RE: Anyone have a spare machine?
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 04 Jan '06

04 Jan '06

KDE 3.4 is supposed to fix this memory problem. -----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:57 AM On Wednesday 04 January 2006 06:25, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > I am looking for something that would run KDE / GNOME well enough that I > don't misinterpret its performance as a bug. I suspect video card + 900 MHz > machine would do the job. Although, beggers are not choosers. + a crapload of RAM Unless you use only very few applications at a time, even 1 GB won't be enough. I generally sit around 3 GB RAM usage-- mostly swapped, which kills performance.

2 1

Re: Linux on older laptops
by Luke-Jr 04 Jan '06

04 Jan '06

On Tuesday 03 January 2006 19:43, you wrote: > Luke-Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 January 2006 00:19, Richard Piper wrote: > >> Just curious Luke, how far do you take this belief? Do you only run > >> computers which work with a free-as-in-freedom BIOs as well? > > > > If I had that choice, I certainly would. Ditto for firmware and hardware. > > I'm sorry, but at this point, you fall off the edge of your own world. > You claim it's immoral for an entity, be it personal or corporate, "corporate entities" is a bug in certain legal systems, not a real thing. > to distribute *their* creation as they see fit, The problem is only when "they see fit" involved artificially restricting the rights of others. > yet you find it reasonable to continue to use that same software/hardware? Not when I have a choice. If I am forced to use something licensed/distributed immorally, well... I'm forced to use it. Not much I can do there. The new open-design PPC system looks promising, though. > You *do* have that choice. Nope. > You could fabricate your own hardware, and then program it yourself. I could not, as I lack the skills to design the hardware or to fabricate it. > You *choose* to skip that step and use someone else's piece's and parts, all > the while espousing how immoral it all is. I have no choice but to use the parts someone else has designed due to above limitations of practicality. > >> The way I see it: the drivers aren't immoral; the company's decision to > >> not open source the drivers was immoral. > > > > And your decision to buy the device and use the drivers is an act of > > support. Now, obviously if you were given it or had already bought it, > > that doesn't apply, but you're still sacrificing your rights and > > piece-of-mind (who knows what backdoors these drivers might have?) by > > using them. > > Are you not, according to your first paragraph, also supporting them? > You're obviously using a computer, yet every computer that runs on non > free-as-in-beer hardware/software is immoral? I can only make a choice when a choice is given. If someone pushes you off a tower, are you at fault because you chose to continue falling?

2 1

Linux on older laptops
by curt 04 Jan '06

04 Jan '06

Hi All, This should start a raging debate! Are there any opinions regarding a good choice of distro for an older laptop? Thinkpad T22 w/384MB ram and Thinkpad T23 w/512MB ram. My only priorities are quick boot times, wireless support, firefox or opera web browsers and a decent word processor that can save files in .doc format. I've considered DSL, but would prefer reiserfs support. Thanks, Curt

11 24

Taking a poll on mail client reply
by Tom Bruno 04 Jan '06

04 Jan '06

I'm tired of hitting reply and then realizing my reply went directly to the person and not the list. It doesn't make sense to _ME_ to default replying to off list because the whole point of the list is to see the questions and the answers. So i propose that we change the mailing list to put kclug(a)kclug.org first in the list of whom to reply so that when people hit reply they reply to the list since technically the list sent them the message. If nobody wants this, that's fine. I know other lists don't do this. I admit, I don't know why they don't do this. I don't know the standards for such a feature. I just thought it would be a way to ensure that replies make it to the list because several times I've had to go in and resend the message cause i suddenly realize my email went to the person and no one else saw it. Like i said, it's just an idea. shoot it down, agree or whatever.

4 4

OT: PHP Programmers Wanted
by rcedelman＠comcast.net 03 Jan '06

03 Jan '06

My employer is looking for some PHP programmers to (I believe) subcontract out to some customers of ours. Must know SQL as well (MySQL 4.x is the backend) as this is a dynamic database driven site. This all will run on a Debian Linux system, so it's kinda related here :) If anyone is interested, email any questions and/or resumes to redelman(a)netstandard.com. If you can include links to examples of your work, that'd be great!

1 0

Re: Taking a poll on mail client reply
by rcedelman＠comcast.net 03 Jan '06

03 Jan '06

Most modern email clients (K-Mail and Evolution come to mind) also have a "reply to list" function that works fairly well. Not that I'm using a modern email client these days, but I wish I was. Comcast's webmail sucks horribly; note the top post! -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Tom Bruno <tom(a)limesg.com> > Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Tom Bruno wrote: > > > > | I'm tired of hitting reply and then realizing my reply went > > | directly to the person and not the list. > > > > This is (holy|flame)-war ground... > > > > Check out the first two google hits on: reply-to munging: > > > > "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > > > MetaSystema.Net: Reply-To Munging Considered Useful > > http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml > > > > My main personal experience with nastiness caused by either method is > > with > > our neighborhood e-mail list: When I first brought the list up, some new > > users were not familiar with the munging feature and send private > > replies to > > the list by mistake (simply by hitting reply). Reply-to munging has been > > disabled ever since... > > > According to other posts, it's immoral to hide your reply's in private > messages ;) > > but I do understand the complications, and like i said, I know nothing > of why it's setup like this, and have no opinion. I just find it annoying. > > And I did it again when i just replied to you, luckly i hit cancel in time. > > > ...and google ranks the "considered harmful" page above the "useful" > > page, > > so it must be bad. :-) > > > > - -- > > Charles Steinkuehler > > charles(a)steinkuehler.net > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFDuuUCLywbqEHdNFwRApKuAJ90K14fkz21uTywPTxdA0y0xk6sigCgureY > > YVkzzmGFmXWI2CEGBbX12FM= > > =p/uE > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > Kclug mailing list > Kclug(a)kclug.org > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

1 0

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