![]() |
Welcome to BroadbanterBanter. You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today. |
|
uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed. |
| Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
| |||
| |||
![]() "MB" wrote in message ... On 03/10/2019 15:25, Martin Brown wrote: I don't see the problem. It is your loss. Sign up to it using a sacrificial email address if like me you do not want to hand your primary one to such an organisation. I often want to contact somewhere to get information but there is only contact is through Facebook so need to be able to give an EMail address for them to reply. I don't want to keep setting up "sacrificial" addresses and they might want to contact me again later or even be slow in replying. Many seem to exist in a little bubble of Facebook, Instagram etc without contact with the rest of the Internet which is obviously what the owners of these sites want. I remember years ago, an article somewhere with someone going on about how useful they were because they could contact the rest of their family. They did not seem to understand that people have been doing that for years without having to use someone like Facebook. but times have changed years ago "the family" would all live in the same general area and visit each other frequently now they will be spread over 100s of miles tim |
#282
| |||
| |||
![]() On 06/10/2019 20:21, tim... wrote: but times have changed years ago "the family" would all live in the same general area and visit each other frequently now they will be spread over 100s of miles EMail and other systems on the Internet work over hundreds of miles without needing to use Facebook. I mentioned in another message, I have been in regular contact for 20 or 30 years with an old college friend who now lives in California and never used Farcebook. |
#283
| |||
| |||
![]() MB wrote: On 06/10/2019 20:21, tim... wrote: but times have changed years ago "the family" would all live in the same general area and visit each other frequently now they will be spread over 100s of miles EMail and other systems on the Internet work over hundreds of miles without needing to use Facebook. I mentioned in another message, I have been in regular contact for 20 or 30 years with an old college friend who now lives in California and never used Farcebook. FB is more than email. It includes videos, video calling, comment threads, etc. It's a better way of linking groups than email. |
#284
| |||
| |||
![]() On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:16:14 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote: On 26/09/2019 18:50, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 26/09/2019 16:20, Chris Green wrote: In uk.telecom.broadband tim... wrote: They were examples of devices that use the internet but aren't computers or mobiles - which was the definition of being an internet user. They are computers surely, just not 'visible to the user' computers. In much the same way you can claim (or deny) that Microsoft based 'computers' are commonest, given that virtually all 'hidden' computers like routers, smart TVs, streaming devices, NAS' etc. are Linux based. I suspect that virtually all hidden computers (electronic doorbells, alarm clocks, cooker controllers, TV remote control) are bares bones systems with no OS at all I think you'd be surprised.* Writing an application (even a simple one) on a system with 'no OS' is non-trivial.* It's *much* easier with an OS. And mostly, it's Linux. In my experience most of those small devices use an OS designed for the job. Linux has heavy requirements; Uh, yeah, which is why it will run much older machines than windows will. "With lower system requirements for Linux distributors than Windows, switching to Linux is a great way to rejuvenate an old computer. This is because Linux requires less hard drive space thereby putting a lesser load on your computer's CPU." it won't run straight out of ROM, ? for example, and it requires an MMU. MMU is a physical component of the computer system, typically part of the CPU. Andy |
#285
| |||
| |||
![]() On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:59:28 +0100, Martyn Barclay wrote: Linux has heavy requirements; Uh, yeah, which is why it will run much older machines than windows will. "With lower system requirements for Linux distributors than Windows, switching to Linux is a great way to rejuvenate an old computer. This is because Linux requires less hard drive space thereby putting a lesser load on your computer’s CPU." I've had as many as nine separate installations of different versions of Linux on the same 60GB SSD. This was just for fun on a spare computer to see what was possible, but the normal setup on my main computer is Windows and Linux Mint in a dual-boot arrangement, so I can easily compare the two systems, including versions of some of the same software applications, on exactly the same hardware. Linux does everything - installations, backups, loading times - noticeably faster than Windows. It's not even necessary to make any measurements in order to be sure of this. Occasionally the difference is quite dramatic, as with the loading time for Gimp, for example, but everything in Linux just feels more brisk and responsive. This is not what I would call an indication of greater demands on the hardware. it won't run straight out of ROM, ? Yes it will. You can make a bootable installation on a USB thumbdrive, and it doesn't even need to be a very big one either. Rod. |
#286
| |||
| |||
![]() On 06/10/2019 09:55, MB wrote: On 03/10/2019 15:25, Martin Brown wrote: I don't see the problem. It is your loss. Sign up to it using a sacrificial email address if like me you do not want to hand your primary one to such an organisation. I often want to contact somewhere to get information but there is only contact is through Facebook so need to be able to give an EMail address for them to reply.* I don't want to keep setting up "sacrificial" addresses and they might want to contact me again later or even be slow in replying. You can keep on using the same one for a while until it becomes totally overloaded with spam. I give all untrusted contacts a sacrificial email address on my domain and then cull any that get sold on. In a more innocent era of the internet I used my primary email address everywhere. That was until the great Swenfest of 2003 when I woke up one morning to find over 1GB of hostile binaries in my inbox and even on a fast cable line it was a chore to delete them using a script. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swen_(computer_worm) After that I have always used distinctly private and public personas and never give an untrusted correspondent a permanent contact. Many seem to exist in a little bubble of Facebook, Instagram etc without contact with the rest of the Internet which is obviously what the owners of these sites want. They are comfortable there and can mostly do what they need to do for their business with little effort. I remember years ago, an article somewhere with someone going on about how useful they were because they could contact the rest of their family.* They did not seem to understand that people have been doing that for years without having to use someone like Facebook. Facebook is just a more modern take on emails with attached pictures but presented in a web friendly manner with a push notification for friends. It helps small societies, church groups and village halls have a "free" online presence without the need for a webmaster or hosting services. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Britons get 'bad deal' from broadband giants" | Java Jive | uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) | 30 | May 28th 19 05:57 PM |
Million Britons miss out on 'decent' broadband speeds | Java Jive | uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) | 30 | December 22nd 17 08:59 PM |
Almost no one in UK will have FTTP 1Gbit £30 symmetric fibre by 2020 from Bhtee | 7[_2_] | uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) | 3 | December 31st 16 10:29 AM |
radio signature of an (almost) enabled exchange | robert w hall | uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) | 7 | December 5th 04 03:12 PM |