Discussion:
advice to pick a cheap txt/HTML/PFD reader
(too old to reply)
vees
2007-03-05 14:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I am looking for a cheap handheld device which would allow me to do
only three things: read text (ascii) files, read HTML files and read
PDF (acrobat reader) files. I do not need any other capability (no
PDA stuff). I would need it to have a USB port to connect to a
computer (an old USB 1 will do fine) and I would want it to be capable
to be managed as a regular storage device (flash stick, hard drive,
whatever) through this USB port. Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
based software.

I would need about 1GB of storage on it, or at least a slot which
could accomodate a 1GB microSD card.

Lastly, since I do not care about the usual PDA bells-n-whistles but
only want to read books with this device, it is welcome to be old and/
or slow as long as it is *cheap*.

Is there such thing on the market?

Many thanks for any pointers,

VS
Rod Speed
2007-03-05 18:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
Hi,
I am looking for a cheap handheld device which would allow me to do
only three things: read text (ascii) files, read HTML files and read
PDF (acrobat reader) files. I do not need any other capability (no
PDA stuff). I would need it to have a USB port to connect to a
computer (an old USB 1 will do fine) and I would want it to be capable
to be managed as a regular storage device (flash stick, hard drive,
whatever) through this USB port. Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
based software.
I would need about 1GB of storage on it, or at least a slot which
could accomodate a 1GB microSD card.
Lastly, since I do not care about the usual PDA bells-n-whistles but
only want to read books with this device, it is welcome to be old and/
or slow as long as it is *cheap*.
Is there such thing on the market?
Hard to say since you didnt say anything about how you want to be able
to view the htmls and pdfs particularly and how 'handheld' it needs to be.

The problem with true handhelds like Palms and PDAs is that the screen
size is quite small, so a pdf or html wont be that readable if its displayed
full screen. And isnt very convenient to use if you have to scroll both
horizontally and vertically.
vees
2007-03-05 19:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Hard to say since you didnt say anything about how you want to be able
to view the htmls and pdfs particularly and how 'handheld' it needs to be.
fair enough. Well, the PDFs I could only hope to look at by scrolling
around the page I suppose. However, the PDF-capability would probably
be the least important one. ascii text & html are really what I need
most. Small screens are ok, by the way, unless of course they are
ridiculously minute, but as long as the text is readable (even with
glasses) I will be happy (HTML woud adapt to the screen size anyway,
at least with any halfway decent browser, as should the text.

As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
size would be great.
Tobias Fünke
2007-03-06 01:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Hard to say since you didnt say anything about how you want to be able
to view the htmls and pdfs particularly and how 'handheld' it needs to be.
fair enough. Well, the PDFs I could only hope to look at by scrolling
around the page I suppose. However, the PDF-capability would probably
be the least important one. ascii text & html are really what I need
most. Small screens are ok, by the way, unless of course they are
ridiculously minute, but as long as the text is readable (even with
glasses) I will be happy (HTML woud adapt to the screen size anyway,
at least with any halfway decent browser, as should the text.
As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
size would be great.
Perhaps an Ultra Mobile PC?
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/mar06/03-09Mobile.mspx
Anthony Matonak
2007-03-06 05:25:17 UTC
Permalink
vees wrote:
...
Post by vees
As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
size would be great.
It sounds like you want one of those ebook readers.
Something like the following...
http://www.irextechnologies.com/products

Unfortunately, it's very expensive.

Anthony
Ron Peterson
2007-03-06 05:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
fair enough. Well, the PDFs I could only hope to look at by scrolling
around the page I suppose. However, the PDF-capability would probably
be the least important one. ascii text & html are really what I need
most. Small screens are ok, by the way, unless of course they are
ridiculously minute, but as long as the text is readable (even with
glasses) I will be happy (HTML woud adapt to the screen size anyway,
at least with any halfway decent browser, as should the text.
As for the "how handheld?" I would say something smaller than a
regular notebook computer. something between a PDA size and a notebook
size would be great.
Would the Linux based Nokia 770 handheld computer meet your needs?

--
Ron
Logan Shaw
2007-03-06 05:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
I am looking for a cheap handheld device which would allow me to do
only three things: read text (ascii) files, read HTML files and read
PDF (acrobat reader) files. I do not need any other capability (no
PDA stuff). I would need it to have a USB port to connect to a
computer (an old USB 1 will do fine) and I would want it to be capable
to be managed as a regular storage device (flash stick, hard drive,
whatever) through this USB port. Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
based software.
I was a programmer writing applications for Palm OS devices for
several years, so I'm fairly familiar with this market. To my
knowledge, there is not any Linux-based PDA that is cheap. Yes,
some of them are reasonably priced, perhaps, but that is not the
same thing as cheap.

Your lack of need for PDA functions probably won't gain you anything.
Any device with the horsepower and storage to do e-books can also
do PDA functions, and the software to do PDA things is not that
complicated, so it will tend to exist on any such device.

I'm not sure if I understand the need to be able to use the device
itself as a USB mass storage device. You can easily take the flash
card (SD Card, usually) out of most devices and use it in a card
reader, which will present it as a USB mass storage device.

As far as software that works with Linux, I'm not really that familiar
with Windows Mobile devices (Pocket PC devices, etc.), and I'm not
sure if they can communicate with Linux. I do know that certain
models of Palm devices (most? all?) can communicate with Linux
systems easily, although that will usually be when running Palm's
Hotsync protocol over USB, not by managing it as USB mass storage
device.

My recommendation (although there may be other good options) is
to look at getting a used Palm device and using Plucker (see
http://www.plkr.org/ ) as the software for reading e-books. Plucker
is free, simple, and cross-platform. Almost all Palm devices in the
last 3 to 5 years have had SD Card slots. Off the top of my head,
one in particular that might be a reasonable choice is the Palm
Tungsten T3. It's a few years old, but it has a color display with
a resolution of 320x480, it has an SD Card slot, and it looks like
you might be able to get one on eBay for $100-ish. There are several
other models of Palm device that would be reasonable as well, but
most have a 320x320 screen, and the bigger screen would be nice if
your primary purpose is to read books. Another reasonable model
is the newer Tungsten T|X, but the T3 is probably better made and
cheaper. (On the other hand, the T|X has wi-fi and more internal
storage.)

- Logan
Paul Rubin
2007-03-06 05:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
based software.
Type "Zaurus" into ebay.
vees
2007-03-06 13:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Rubin
Post by vees
Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not
want it to come with any proprietary software suite which is usable
only with Windows or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace
it). Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with Linux-
based software.
Type "Zaurus" into ebay.
Hi friends, thanks for your comments.

Tobias: while this Ultra Mobile PC looks neat, my acute allergy to
anything Microsoft (and the price) stand in the way of me considering
it.
Anthony: yes, the iRex readers would be a dream come true, but they
are out of my range financially
Logan: thanks for all your info. As you can tell I am a total PDA
newbie. And you are quite correct, could use a micro/miniSD to
exchange data (I already have an adapter for my computers which I use
to interface with my phone). Most Windows devices cannot communicate
with GNU/Linux but the opposite quite often is possible (i.e. by by-
passing the proprietary software) as soon as the protocols are reverse-
engineered). But using GNU/Linux is not at all a must for me as long
as I can find a way to load up books to the device, be it by USB or
microSD cards.
Ron: the Nokia sounds perfect, all I need is to find a used one for a
cheap price...
Paul: call me silly & paranoid, but I do not trust the entire ebay
thing. There are simply too many schemes going on there. But the
Zaurus looks fantastic for sure.

Kind regards,

VS
Rod Speed
2007-03-06 18:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
Post by Paul Rubin
Since I only use GNU/Linux I do not want it to come with any
proprietary software suite which is usable only with Windows
or Apple computers (unless I can erase and replace it).
Lastly, I would very much prefer if this device came with
Linux- based software.
Type "Zaurus" into ebay.
Hi friends, thanks for your comments.
Tobias: while this Ultra Mobile PC looks neat, my acute allergy to
anything Microsoft (and the price) stand in the way of me considering it.
Anthony: yes, the iRex readers would be a dream
come true, but they are out of my range financially
Logan: thanks for all your info. As you can tell I am a total PDA newbie.
And you are quite correct, could use a micro/miniSD to exchange data
(I already have an adapter for my computers which I use to interface with
my phone). Most Windows devices cannot communicate with GNU/Linux
That is just plain wrong. They all can.
Post by vees
but the opposite quite often is possible (i.e. by by- passing the proprietary
software) as soon as the protocols are reverse- engineered).
You dont need to do that, normal networking works fine.
Post by vees
But using GNU/Linux is not at all a must for me as long as I can find a
way to load up books to the device, be it by USB or microSD cards.
Ron: the Nokia sounds perfect, all I need is to find a used one for a cheap price...
Dunno, my superficial reaction is that the screen is
too small unless you dont plan to read much using it.
Post by vees
Paul: call me silly & paranoid, but I do not trust the entire ebay thing.
More fool you.
Post by vees
There are simply too many schemes going on there.
They are trivially avoidable by ignoring sellers which have little
feedback and which can have faked up what feedback they do have.
Post by vees
But the Zaurus looks fantastic for sure.
Logan Shaw
2007-03-07 05:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
(I already have an adapter for my computers which I use to interface with
my phone). Most Windows devices cannot communicate with GNU/Linux
That is just plain wrong. They all can.
OK, Rod, since you're an expert on this, how does one synchronize a
Windows Mobile device (i.e. a Pocket PC) with a Linux desktop machine?

- Logan
Rod Speed
2007-03-07 06:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Logan Shaw
Post by Rod Speed
(I already have an adapter for my computers which I use to interface with my phone). Most
Windows devices cannot communicate with GNU/Linux
That is just plain wrong. They all can.
OK, Rod, since you're an expert on this, how does one synchronize a
Windows Mobile device (i.e. a Pocket PC) with a Linux desktop machine?
Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.

You havent even established that the OP needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.
vees
2007-03-07 17:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.
You havent even established that the OP needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.
well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this PDA
is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))

other than that, the SMB protocol does allow unices to mount NTFS/
fat32 partitions of course, and as far as I know NFS is not
implemented on Windows. but that is just a sidebar to the real thing
which is that none of the filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be
recognizable by Windows, that Windows drivers do not function without
a wrapper and that the vast majority of software shipped with Windows-
based machines have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/
Linux box.

So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to
say that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.
Rod Speed
2007-03-07 19:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.
You havent even established that the OP
needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.
well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))
Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive specs,
you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system. The better
Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.

And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.
Post by vees
other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,
Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.
Post by vees
and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,
By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.
Post by vees
that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.
Thats a stupid way to do it.
Post by vees
So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to
say that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.
Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.

And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.

Plenty of the better cellphones and pda support cat5 and wifi etc now.
vees
2007-03-08 00:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive specs,
you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system. The better
Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.
no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,
and Ubuntu is not a 'system', just a distro derived from Debian. not
to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux systems
like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the fact that
XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented, which is not a
native Windows protocol to begin with (although MS tried to
appropriate and modify it)
Post by Rod Speed
And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.
Post by vees
other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,
Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.
which has precious little to do with Windows
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,
By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.
that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.
Thats a stupid way to do it.
Really? Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster*
with Wine or Crossover? Probably not... Besides, if that is the
"stupid" way to do it, you could make millions telling people what
that 'smart' way is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free
box, LOL!
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to
say that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.
Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.
Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is
doable. But why would anyone in his right mind use such a
pathetically outdated and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling
filesystems have been standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!
Post by Rod Speed
And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.
oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right? And that
proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT
world?

Seen a mirror lately?
Rod Speed
2007-03-08 02:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.
You havent even established that the OP
needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.
well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))
Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive
specs, you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system.
The better Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.
no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,
Wrong, plenty dont mount it auto like XP does.
Post by vees
and Ubuntu is not a 'system',
It is in the sense that its an operating system.
Post by vees
just a distro derived from Debian.
Still an operating system.
Post by vees
not to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux
systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the
fact that XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented,
Wrong when the device is happy to appear as a USB drive,
and the vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.
Post by vees
which is not a native Windows protocol to begin
with (although MS tried to appropriate and modify it)
Never said a word about it being that being a native Windows protocol.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.
Post by vees
other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,
Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.
which has precious little to do with Windows
Everything to with what was being discussed, how to
COMMUNICATE with that device from Windows or Linux.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,
By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.
that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...
Native Windows is irrelevant, what matters is what is trivial to add to that.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.
Thats a stupid way to do it.
Really?
Yep.
Post by vees
Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster* with Wine or Crossover?
Irrelevant when you have enough of a clue to not
bother with a Win app when the system is running Linux.
Post by vees
Probably not... Besides, if that is the "stupid" way to do it,
you could make millions telling people what that 'smart' way
is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free box, LOL!
You dont need to bother with the win32 APIs if you just want
to communicate with the device that is being used as a reader.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to say
that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.
Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.
Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is doable.
But why would anyone in his right mind use such a pathetically outdated
and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling filesystems have been
standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!
Because that format allows effortless communication with
both Win and Linux systems. You dont need anything fancy
filesystem wise with a reader for text, html and pdf files.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.
oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right?
Nope, just that that allows effortless communication with Win and Linux systems.
Post by vees
And that proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT world?
Never ever said a word about that, bigot boy.
Post by vees
Seen a mirror lately?
Pathetic.
vees
2007-03-08 02:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.
You havent even established that the OP
needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.
well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))
Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive
specs, you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system.
The better Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.
no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,
Wrong, plenty dont mount it auto like XP does.
Post by vees
and Ubuntu is not a 'system',
It is in the sense that its an operating system.
nope. the OS is called GNU. the kernel Linux. Debian is a distro and
Ubuntu is a derived distro
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
just a distro derived from Debian.
Still an operating system.
still clueless? oh my...
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
not to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux
systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the
fact that XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented,
Wrong when the device is happy to appear as a USB drive,
and the vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.
Post by vees
which is not a native Windows protocol to begin
with (although MS tried to appropriate and modify it)
Never said a word about it being that being a native Windows protocol.
indeed you did not. you just said that Windoze can do it, which sure
does not imply that it needs a non-native SMB, provided by the free
box I would add
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.
Post by vees
other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,
Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.
which has precious little to do with Windows
Everything to with what was being discussed, how to
COMMUNICATE with that device from Windows or Linux.
well, since you failed to show in any way how Windows could
communicate with anything without being helped to do so with the said
anything - you look like a total idiot now :-))
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,
By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.
that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...
Native Windows is irrelevant, what matters is what is trivial to add to that.
I agree that Windows is irrelevant. and adding anything to that piece
of shit does not make it better in any way
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that the
vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.
Thats a stupid way to do it.
Really?
Yep.
if you say so
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster* with Wine or Crossover?
Irrelevant when you have enough of a clue to not
bother with a Win app when the system is running Linux.
in fact I do not do that as proprietary bloatware sucks anyway. but
should one choose to do that you can get better results in a solid OS
like GNU or *BSD which the original Windows cannot even dream of
achieving
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Probably not... Besides, if that is the "stupid" way to do it,
you could make millions telling people what that 'smart' way
is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free box, LOL!
You dont need to bother with the win32 APIs if you just want
to communicate with the device that is being used as a reader.
you are somewhat logically challenged dude. The emulator would be
used to make some friggin proprietary bloatware run to communicate
with a piece of hardware by using the win32 app shipped with it. what
the device does matters little here. try reading this 3-4 times,
slowly, you might get it
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to say
that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.
Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.
Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is doable.
But why would anyone in his right mind use such a pathetically outdated
and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling filesystems have been
standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!
Because that format allows effortless communication with
both Win and Linux systems. You dont need anything fancy
filesystem wise with a reader for text, html and pdf files.
nope. wrong again. a filesystem has precious little to do with any
communications protocol. FAT32 is a filesystem (albeit a crappy one),
SMB is a protocol. They do not depend on each other in any way.
Windows boxes cannot mount ReiserFS or Ext3 regardless of the
protocol. nor can they mount a FAT32 partition on a free box if their
toolbox of protocols does not make it possible. So using SMB - which
is NOT Windows - only shows that BSD and GNU hackers did a great job
creating a samba, not that Windows retards have boxes which can
communicate with the rest of the world.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.
oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right?
Nope, just that that allows effortless communication with Win and Linux systems.
well, if you admit your ideas are stupid there is progress here ;-)
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
And that proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT world?
Never ever said a word about that, bigot boy.
you might want to re-read the entire exchange before making yourself
look even more stupid
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Seen a mirror lately?
Pathetic.
so you looked! great. self-awareness is the first step to recovery.
and maybe getting facts straight

[oh boy - I just came across this: http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/c6cb179032d8d6ff

no wonder I am wasting my breath on this clueless lamer...]
Rod Speed
2007-03-08 03:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Synchronise is an entirely separate issue to COMMUNICATE.
You havent even established that the OP
needs to synchronise, just COMMUNICATE.
well, if I gave you the feeling that all I wanted to do with this
PDA is to ping it on an ethernet connection I am sorry :-))
Didnt say that. Obviously if the device adheres to the USB drive
specs, you can communicate with it fine using a Win or Linux system.
The better Linux systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does etc.
no, not 'the better Linux system', *any* GNU/Linux system can do that,
Wrong, plenty dont mount it auto like XP does.
Post by vees
and Ubuntu is not a 'system',
It is in the sense that its an operating system.
nope.
Yep.
Post by vees
the OS is called GNU. the kernel Linux.
Debian is a distro and Ubuntu is a derived distro
Its STILL an operating system.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
just a distro derived from Debian.
Still an operating system.
still clueless? oh my...
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
not to mention that the point is not what GNU/Linux can do ("Linux
systems like Ubuntu will mount it auto just like XP does"), but the
fact that XP cannot mount anything GNU unless SMB is implemented,
Wrong when the device is happy to appear as a USB drive,
and the vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.
Post by vees
which is not a native Windows protocol to begin
with (although MS tried to appropriate and modify it)
Never said a word about it being that being a native Windows protocol.
indeed you did not. you just said that Windoze can do it, which sure does not
imply that it needs a non-native SMB, provided by the free box I would add
God knows what this silly shit is about, presumably just another juvenile smokescreen.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
And its quite feasible to synchronise in that sense if it can do that too.
Post by vees
other than that, the SMB protocol does allow
unices to mount NTFS/ fat32 partitions of course,
Yep. And like I said, that isnt the only way to do it. The other
obvious approach is to have the reader appear to be a USB
drive and almost all of the better cellphones and PDAs do that.
which has precious little to do with Windows
Everything to with what was being discussed, how to
COMMUNICATE with that device from Windows or Linux.
well, since you failed to show in any way how Windows could communicate
with anything without being helped to do so with the said anything
Doesnt need any help IF THE DEVICE APPEARS TO BE A USB DRIVE,
as the absolute vast bulk of cellphones and PDAs and viewers do.
Post by vees
- you look like a total idiot now :-))
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
and as far as I know NFS is not implemented on Windows. but
that is just a sidebar to the real thing which is that none of the
filesystems used on GNU/Linux can be recognizable by Windows,
By native Win, sure. But there are plenty of ways of dealing with that.
that was what I was talking about. Good ole crappy native Windoze...
Native Windows is irrelevant, what matters is what is trivial to add to that.
I agree that Windows is irrelevant. and adding anything
to that piece of shit does not make it better in any way
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot boy.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
that Windows drivers do not function without a wrapper and that
the vast majority of software shipped with Windows- based machines
have to be run trough an emulator to function on a GNU/ Linux box.
Thats a stupid way to do it.
Really?
Yep.
if you say so
Pathetic.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Did you know that a lot of Windows apps actually run *faster* with Wine or Crossover?
Irrelevant when you have enough of a clue to not
bother with a Win app when the system is running Linux.
in fact I do not do that as proprietary bloatware sucks anyway. but should
one choose to do that you can get better results in a solid OS like GNU or
*BSD which the original Windows cannot even dream of achieving
Win handles viewers which appear as a USB drive fine, bigot child.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Probably not... Besides, if that is the "stupid" way to do it,
you could make millions telling people what that 'smart' way
is to run apps making calls to win32 APIs on a free box, LOL!
You dont need to bother with the win32 APIs if you just want
to communicate with the device that is being used as a reader.
you are somewhat logically challenged dude.
You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, dud.
Post by vees
The emulator would be used to make some friggin proprietary bloatware
You dont need anything proprietary when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.
Post by vees
run to communicate with a piece of hardware by using the win32 app shipped with it.
You dont need any win32 apps shipped with it when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.
Post by vees
what the device does matters little here.
Wrong when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.
Post by vees
try reading this 3-4 times, slowly, you might get it
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot child.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
So yes, the GNU/Linux community's hackers constantly reverse-engineer
lots of hardware drivers and protocols and get it working, but as to say
that *Windows* proper can do anything of its own with a GNU/Linux
machine (or any *BSD box for that matter), nope.
Thats just plain wrong if you have enough of a clue to format
the Linux drive FAT32 and virtually all of them can do that.
Enough of a clue to format a Linux box with FAT32? Sure that is doable.
But why would anyone in his right mind use such a pathetically outdated
and crappy filesystem when top-notch journalling filesystems have been
standart on GNU and BSD boxes for years now?!
Because that format allows effortless communication with
both Win and Linux systems. You dont need anything fancy
filesystem wise with a reader for text, html and pdf files.
nope. wrong again.
We'll see...
Post by vees
a filesystem has precious little to do with any communications protocol.
Wrong when the viewer appears as a USB drive, bigot child.
Post by vees
FAT32 is a filesystem (albeit a crappy one), SMB is a protocol.
Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.
Post by vees
They do not depend on each other in any way.
Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.
Post by vees
Windows boxes cannot mount ReiserFS or Ext3 regardless of the protocol.
Only a fool would format a viewer in either format, bigot child.
Post by vees
nor can they mount a FAT32 partition on a free box if
their toolbox of protocols does not make it possible.
Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.
Post by vees
So using SMB - which is NOT Windows
Must be one of those rocket scientist bigot children.
Post by vees
- only shows that BSD and GNU hackers did a great
job creating a samba, not that Windows retards have
boxes which can communicate with the rest of the world.
Irrelevant to what makes sense with a viewer, bigot child.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
And you can hide the drive format completely by doing the file
movements at a higher protocol level, over cat5/wifi etc etc etc too.
oh and doing that is what you think of as 'smart' right?
Nope, just that that allows effortless communication with Win and Linux systems.
well, if you admit your ideas are stupid there is progress here ;-)
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot child.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
And that proves your point that Windoze can communicate with the rest of the IT world?
Never ever said a word about that, bigot boy.
you might want to re-read the entire exchange
No point, your juvenile shit stays juvenile shit no matter how often its reread.
Post by vees
before making yourself look even more stupid
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, bigot child.
Post by vees
Post by Rod Speed
Post by vees
Seen a mirror lately?
Pathetic.
<reams of its puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Loading...