[sf-lug] (forw) Re: Meeting of November 7, 2021 and some updated iso files.

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):

> I really preferred the BBS to the Internet and tried to avoid
> connecting for a long time.

One thing I miss was the _local nature_.  My and my friends' BBSes
created a sense of place.  They weren't just "on the Net":  They
reflected the specific towns and user communities they were in. 

If you'd been an owner/builder/sysop, though, as I was, you'd probably 
eventually get dismayed with how petty and rinky-dink all the designs
and implementations were.  I was in the middle of re-architecting my BBS 
after seven years of operation in 1993 when I regretfully concluded that
even the most cutting-edge BBS systems (and I was tentatively doing
Maximus OS/2 on HFPS filesystems to get away from DOS/FAT/8086-real-mode
limitations) was hobbled by DOS-rooted bullbleep at every turn.  The
only way to lose that was to make a clean break, which is what I did.

Oh, by the way, I looked it up, and your recollection is faulty:
Checksum verification on AmigaOS was common and was done with
calculating and comparing CDC-32 or MD5 hashes.  (That's aside from
inline checksumming via zmodem and kin.)

It's been a while.  You probably forgot.


> You miss my point that I need a color printer with scanner that can
> handle monochrome output as well.  And the inkjet printers are more
> compact as well.

At the time, you did _not_ say you actually had an indispensible need
for colour printing at home, and in fact you didn't say anything about
that until just now.

If I were in that situation, I would have _both_ an inexpensive B&W
laser printer for the 99% of the time when that is The Right Thing, and
an inkjet for the rare exceptions that actually require colour.
Because, doing inkjet-only printing is way too expensive even with
modest printing frequency.

_Or_, if my need for colour printing was quite rare, I might pony up for
that (only) at FedEx Office.  Because it might be a lot cheaper, on
balance, depending on page count/frequency.

The worst of all solutions, which is the one you said was required
because you "couldn't afford a laser printer", was to buy only an inkjet
-- because that then ruins your budget with the exhorbitant cost of ink
cartridge supplies.  _And_ the printer you said you bought was full
retail price.  Logically, if extremely impoverished, one would buy 
used, e.g., off Craigslist, instead.  

The "well, having only an inkjet printer is smarter because it's more
compact" is just retro-justificatory bullhockey.  I've never seen a
studio apartment so small it cannot have a stand thrown together from
four lath sticks and two plywood shelves, so one printer can sit above
the other.

Basically, you made a tactical mistake, and then you jumped through
hoops justifying it retroactively.  OK, I get that.  It's human.

But I also post to this mailing list in the hopes of helping others
avoid _repeating_ (and emulating) mistakes.



> I looked at the color laser printer and am trying to contract the rest
> of my storage and computer footprint so that I could find room for one
> but so far i have failed to attain that space.  

Colour lasers, along with other exotics like solid ink aka phase-change
printers (https://www.webopedia.com/definitions/solid-ink-jet-printer/)
tend to be pretty expensive and have pretty expensive-per-page supplies.

I personally find it more practical to, instead, avoid significant need
for colour printing.  Because, although I'm not desperately poor, I
don't like throwing away money unwisely.



>> I'll caution that adding RAM to an existing machine (to max it out)
>> sometimes makes economic sense, sometimes not.
>
> Economic sense perhaps but there are other measures of values
> than dollars and cents.

That statement is tautologically true but _doesn't say anything_
at all -- and is _really_ weird coming from someone who says all she
could afford in the way of printers is an inkjet printer (that she
bought at full retail).

I could elaborate on what I meant _specifically_ if we were to talk
about particular machines and scenarios.  Significant in that picture is
that a given class/speed/type of RAM, once it ages out of mainstream 
use, starts to become a specialty item with higher pricing.  Also, the
same money required for maxing out RAM on a quite old, slow machine 
might be used to much greater benefit by selling the old machine, then 
using the proceeds plus that discretionary funds to buy one with better
prospects.  Or that money might be better used to replace an HD with an
SSD.  It depends on particular.


> Well I cannot think off hand of any San Francisco back yards
> that would host
> a LUG.

Doesn't sound likely.  So, find a nice, cavernous, uncrowded 
restaurant, perhaps (on the model of the Natoma Street Henry's Hunan,
that, as mentioned, last I checked is lunch-only).

> Indeed but we must use all caution in returning to normality.

Keep watching the county/state case and R-eff metrics.  (And, of course,
if you don't yet know how to understand the metrics, learn that first.)

FDA issued the EUA for age 5-11 this afternoon, ahead of schedule.  
CDC approval will probably now be equally quick,


> So far all input has been to return to video for the next
> meeting.  

Well, that's the path of least resistance, so that alone is sufficient
reason why SF-LUG will likely be doing that for the time being.  I
remember with amusement that, when I recommended Jitsi Meet to SF-LUG
on the basis of ongoing success at multiple LUGs including but not
limited to[1] CABAL, loud SF-LUG voices including yours immediately
proclaimed that ordinary computer users would never be able to get the
hang of Internet videoconferencing.  Nope.  Utterly impractical, can't
happen.

And that was immediately before y'all did it, like basically the entire
rest of the world.  So, it's not surprising that _now_ it's not only the
natural thing but it's outlandish to think of doing anything different.


> Unless some staunch advocates for in person meetings show up soon to
> voice their opinions we will be meeting on computer screens and by
> telephone.

I prefer the phrase "path of least resistance".  It's shorter.  ;->