Re: Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive was Re: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???
From: Steve Thompson (steve_nospam_t_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 12/21/03
- Next message: Richard: "Re: PROBLEM SOLVED - State of WORKING-STORAGE in Statically-Called Subroutines"
- Previous message: Steve Thompson: "Re: Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive was Re: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???"
- In reply to: PAUL RAULERSON: "Re: Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive was Re: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???"
- Next in thread: Steve Thompson: "Re: Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive was Re: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:07:19 -0500
In article <pz_Cb.12010$gk1.2255@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
pkraulerson@verizon.net says...
> I was on my laptop, and I have not yet figured out how to get Linux to talk
> over a wireless network with the
> Orinoco card installed in it. It is on the agenda to replace the Windows XP
> Prof on this laptop with either Linux,
> or if necessary, MacOS-X.
<snip>
I'm having a similar problem with LindowsOS 4.0 (based on a
Debian distro). I've found who makes the chipset for my card
(LINKSYS 54g) and they [Broadcom] aren't forthcoming on a driver
for their chipsets.
I've heard, and I've not had a chance to test it, that Belkin
may have the drivers that work -- not sure who makes the Orinoco
chipset(s), but if it is Broadcom... So don't take this as a
recommendation.
-- Steve Thompson www.vsstrategies.com 330/335-7228 office Notice: By sending UCE/BCE (a/k/a, spam) to this address, you are accepting and agreeing to our charging a $1000 fee, per spam item, for handling and processing, and you agree to pay any and all costs incurred (including court costs and/or attorney's fees) for collecting this fee.
- Next message: Richard: "Re: PROBLEM SOLVED - State of WORKING-STORAGE in Statically-Called Subroutines"
- Previous message: Steve Thompson: "Re: Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive was Re: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???"
- In reply to: PAUL RAULERSON: "Re: Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive was Re: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???"
- Next in thread: Steve Thompson: "Re: Mainframe not a good architecture for interactive was Re: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
