On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
Post by AdamAlthough there seemed to be de facto standards IIRC, 1-2-3 for
spreadsheets, only a few WP apps (WordPerfect), only a few telecomm
apps, etc.
Yes on 123, and the telcom aps (Procomm 2.4.2 I think it was).
Databases and word processing was more varied - I can also remember
WordStar, Multimate, SpellBinder, and I know there were more.
Post by AdamWhen I worked at IBM in 1988, of course IBM had (official?) policies.
Everyone in my department used 1-2-3 for spreadsheets, some
long-forgotten word processor I didn't like, PROFS for email within
the company, and so on.
We've _tended_ towards some standardization, but I was spending some
time at NASA back then, and that was anarchy central. For PCs, the
only standard was that they were IBMs or clones. This was an
improvement, as we still had some CP/M stuff, and that was really
"anything goes". PCs were generally bought at the 'branch' level
which is about the equivalent of a department (30-300 people), and
the specs were set by whoever wrote/signed the purchase order. There
wasn't much in the way of actual standards - although it was often
suggested in feedback to buy GSA standardized stuff (which sorta meant
a volume discount on prices). Here, it's somewhat the same in
that you can buy what you want, but you'll run into support and
pricing issues if you don't buy one of our ``standard'' models.
Post by AdamEven nowadays, although Linux is all about choice, there are
obviously some more common choices. From what I can tell, bash,
I haven't looked at the master password file in over a year, but
recall it was definitely NOT '/bin/bash' for everyone. We've got
people who swear by ash, dash, ksh (even various _versions_ of the
Korn shell), zsh, and even a few hold-outs still using the 'c' shell.
Post by AdamOO.o, GIMP, and a few others are the most popular in their categories.
True, but there is the question of actual use. I so rarely use a word
processor of _any_ kind - virtually everything is done in raw ASCII
using a dumb text editor (won't try to stir up an editor war by
mentioning which one).
Post by AdamOne thing I usually consider for "larger" programs IS the size of the
user community.
A consideration - sure
Post by AdamOf course, nothing says I have to stick with it if I find another one
that works better for me.
That's really the bottom line - is it doing what you need/want.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinPost by AdamWhat surprises me is how, since switching from KDE4 to XFCE, how
many KDE libraries and apps have been removed from my system.
I take that to mean you uninstalling unused stuff.
Yep. Often uninstalling some KDE-based app either requires removing
other KDE apps, or leaves some KDE libs orphaned. And I don't
hesitate to use (new command for me) "urpme --auto-orphans" because I
figure I can always get those packages again, should I need them
badly enough.
The major advantage of a package system. Generally speaking, our
users don't get in and mess with it, but our support people love the
the system. We have a number of people in the company whose job is
to monitor/audit the software (definitely not my idea of a fun job)
and they've standardized things to the extent that I've got a choice
of several workstation configurations. The computer support people
know which one I need, and if my system gets trashed somehow, they
can pour a new install in less time than it takes to fill in the
blasted paperwork explaining why/what happened.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinIn a way funny, because when Cinerama was unleashed on the world,
television was mainly black/white, wasn't stereo
But it was free once you bought the TV set), and you didn't have to
get dressed up for it.
But it _wasn't_ free. The Jones lived next door on both sides and
across the street, and the people you worked with... I think we were
buying a new TV set nearly as often as we were buying a new car.
Post by AdamPost by Moe Trinbut if you wanted to see "a show", the movies were still
_the_ place (yeah - could have been a drive-in).
I keep forgetting drive-ins are practically obsolete, because
there's one about five minutes from my home that I drive past
practically all the time. Of course it's temporarily closed for the
season.
I'm trying to remember the last time I saw one - I _think_ there are
some in the metro area (about a thousand square miles). They're going
to be less common here because no one wants to sit in a parked car in
high summer, even after sunset.
Post by AdamThe farmer's market and other local events are held there as well.
There's another working drive-in less than a half hour away as well.
Once I tried looking for a third drive-in because there's a big sign
along the highway, but all I found were some houses. Apparently the
sign was the only thing left of that one.
I'm one up on you there, because I probably have 5 hours a year flying
around the area in the evenings, and they should stand out. OK, made
me look - there is one listed in the metro yellow pages, but it's not
shown on the 1:250k VFR Terminal Area navigation chart.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinThe little I've heard about it, that would have to be some form of
re-master, as the color quality of the original 70 mm film has
deteriorated a lot over time.
Whatever it was, some people definitely did see it.
Mentioned this to a friend, and he claims the Todd-AO version was
released as a LaserDisk - ought to tell you how long ago.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinI believe I saw "Eighty Days" in both versions.
Do you remember much difference in the impact it made on you? I know
that was also Todd-AO and that Mike Todd himself was quite active in
its production.
No, it was decades ago - perhaps 50 years ago.
Post by AdamThere are some movies that come off much better on a big screen,
and many others that come off better simply because of the crowds
there, especially comedies.
I think the big screen had the advantage when the scenes were
large - the outdoor shots - Passepartout reaching over the side of
the balloon gondola to get the ice for the champagne bucket for
example. IMAX is probably a good example of this as well.
Post by AdamMaybe as opposed to TV, where IMHO very few shows actually were an
improvement when seen in color.
I can certainly agree there.
[room coolers]
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinVery much expected. I can't imagine anyone in the Northeast, or
(especially) Florida wanting one.
I've been in Miami Beach in August (in South Beach, back before it
was called that), and it was some of the most consistently unpleasant
weather I've dealt with.
It's not limited to Florida. In the early 1960s, I returned from
Europe and found that my mother (in Connecticut) had bought one of
these coolers. This was early June, and the following morning I went
out and bought a 5k BTU/hr window air conditioner for her. She did
whimper about the increased electrical bill, but decided the tradeoff
was worth it.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinOn the other hand, I doubt we'd be buying many wood stoves or snow
blowers out here. ;-)
Or many winter coats, which to me means coats meant for below-
freezing weather.
I'll admit I don't have a nice heavy parka any more, but you'd be
wrong about the coats. Remember we're used to the hot weather, and
when it gets down below 50F/10C we're in danger of frostbite. Also,
we do travel a bit (I was in SLC Thursday and Friday), and those
other places are nowhere _near_ as comfortable.
[de-humidifier]
Post by AdamAround here, it would get a lot more usage. My parents have one in
their basement all summer, and it pulls out about a gallon a day,
and makes a difference in the rest of the house as well.
In less than the last four weeks, I've gotten as much rain (6.02"/153
mm) as nearly all of last year (6.09"/154.7 mm). Several of the down
town river crossings are still closed. Thursday morning, we actually
had some fog in a few areas. Wasn't quite bad enough to get me to
dig out the de-humidifier, but I did think about it. As for a gallon
a day in the basement, that sounds more like seepage through the
cellar walls/floor. Both of my sisters had that problem in Connecticut
but part of that is that the water table is fairly shallow (~10 feet).
That's one problem we don't have here.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinDepends on where in New Mexico
I was thinking in particular of when I visited my cousin near Santa Fe.
I got some photos of his house that practically SCREAM "New Mexico" to
people who are familiar with the architecture.
Adobe?
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinA lot of the houses tend to be wood frame with a stucco exterior
built on a slab (no cellar) often with a (cement) tile roof.
A lot of SoCal houses have those wavy rust-colored roof tiles,
whatever they're made of, on slanted roofs.
The originals are simply baked clay. The color may be the color of
the clay itself, or rarely a glaze. The more common version is made
of concrete with a glaze on the outer surface. They're heavy, some
what fragile, and relatively cheap. A less common version is made of
a formed sheet metal that is dipped in a colored clay mixture and
baked. They're much lighter weight and cheaper, but are easily damaged.
The problem you run into is finding replacements when needed. There are
34 builders in the `development' (~1.5 square mile) I live in, and
each one chose a different color for the roof tiles. It's not as
obvious from the ground (quite obvious from the air), but it's
nearly impossible to get matching replacements, and not even easy
to find something "close enough".
Post by AdamI'm still surprised every time I see a flat roof, because around here
that would be unthinkable, or at least stupid.
They certainly are common enough - it's just that there can be major
problems in some weather conditions. About 3 weeks ago, we had a
major storm series go through here, and several flat roof buildings
collapsed in Flagstaff under the weight of ~18 inches of wet snow.
We've also had flat roofs collapse here in Phoenix in a cloud-burst
if the roof drains are clogged.
Post by AdamEven where I grew up, by the 1970s they were building "developments"
(as they were called in our area) with quarter-acre lots, practically
all raised ranches, and people described where they lived by the name
of the development.
[compton ~]$ whatis Levittown
Levittown: nothing appropriate
[compton ~]$
The concept goes back a lot further - Levittown is only late 1950s,
but there were similar "squeeze 'em in" builders in the 19th century.
Post by AdamI grew up in a house built in 1963, in pre-development days, where
each house looks different and the lots are about an acre.
"look different" because the builder oriented the buildings four
ways (swapping left/right and back/front) but it was all the same
floor plan? The first house we bought in California (~1000 square,
3/1 on a 52x108 lot) was built in 1951 in a 50 home development, and
the builder pulled that trick to make things look different. I haven't
seen new houses individually built outside of the VERY high price zone,
and they're all on small (1/8 to 1/6 acre) lots.
Post by AdamFor years I thought mine was on a lot slightly bigger than an acre,
but I was disillusioned recently to find out it was only 0.98 acres.
An acre (43560.0 square foot / 4048.92921 square meters) is a lot of
land, and most sales today are either small fractions noted above or
multiples of an acre (current radio ads for 20, 30, and 60 acre lots
that happen to be near a road but otherwise many miles from the
nearest town larger than 50 houses). Used to was an acre was a more
common lot size, but that tends to be before WW2. It was also not
common in "established" towns - suburbs, yes, but not closer.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinAs a general statement, housing isn't that old.
Not around here either. Plenty of spaces that I remember as
undeveloped land (which around here usually means tree-covered) are
now the sites of houses or stores.
I know what you're saying - recall New York was one of the original
13 colonies, while most of the West was only marginally developed by
the Spanish at the same time (ignoring the natives in both cases).
This portion of Phoenix was ranch land (cattle grazing at most) up to
the late 1980s. That house we owned in California (about 7 miles
NW of San Jose) was cherry orchard in the 1940s, and the nearby land
was mainly salt marsh (the bay).
Post by AdamAnd the few remaining undeveloped areas, I expect to see developed
within my lifetime. Especially those along the highways.
In the 1970s, I spent some vacation time in Connecticut, and having
recently gotten my commercial pilots license was taking family up for
plane rides. There was a minor shock when I realized that "the big
woods behind my oldest sisters house really wasn't that big. Once I
thought about it, and actually looked at the maps, I realized the
area was built up a lot more than I thought. Perspective change.
[power use, humidifiers and elsewhere]
Post by AdamI just measured mine. At top speed it's about half a gallon a day,
and draws 120 VA and 60W.
You're paying for the 60 Watts, and that's likely to be $2 a month
running 24/7.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinI don't know which style you have, but the main consumption is the
fan.
That's the only powered part in it after all.
Sounds more like a sick-room humidifier - Walgreens had them on sale
here last week for about $18 I think.
Post by AdamPost by Moe TrinFive computers on one UPS and it's reporting 450 VA, including one
CRT monitor (60 VA on it's own).
I turn off my CRT monitor when I'm not actually using the computer,
to save both wear and money.
My CRT monitor is on about 2-3 hours a day max. We've also got three
LCD monitors that get vaguely similar use, but they draw only 27 VA.
Post by AdamI forget its actual power consumption, but it was interesting to see
how it varied depending on the brightness of the image.
Got a light meter handy? The CRT monitors do put out a fair amount
of light - especially in GUI mode. With the lights _out_ in the
computer room, highlighting text in an xterm provides almost enough
light to be able to read a magazine.
Old guy
