[SGVLUG] SCALE5x Booth - Volunteers and Ideas: LinuxDoc and Dumb Terminals

[Jeff Carlson]

David Lawyer wrote:
> I just looked up where this is on a paper map and also checked the
> Internet for rail connections to get there.  The Westin says it's only
> 4 blocks from the airport but in fact it's more like 8 if you count
> side streets that end at Century Blvd (which the Westin Hotel is on).
> It's over a mile from the Westin to the airport entrance and then it
> may be over a mile from the entrance to a terminal if you are flying.

A city block is standardly recognized as 1/4 mile.  Thus, 4 blocks == 1
mile.  I once walked from the Crown Plaza to the Westin.  It wasn't a
hard walk, but it was August, and if I had the energy after getting
there, I would have kicked myself for making the dumb decision.  This is
February, it won't be so hot.  Hopefully I won't need to kick myself,
though.

> And speaking of terminals :-)  What about demonstrating my dumb
> terminal at the expo?.  It's 23 years old and is supported by linux
> with it's own termcap (for the CIT-101e terminal).  The Co. that made
> the terminal went out of business shortly after they made it, but
> another much newer terminal went dead on me, so I had to go back to
> using this antique.  I use it outside and it's gotten wet in various
> rainstorms but still works.  The theme of such an exhibition is that
> Linux supports quality antique hardware (and MS doesn't --or do they
> ??).  I think if MS  does, you have to pay extra for such support.
> And anyway, what does MS Windows offer for the command-line interface
> except terrible DOS?  Another theme is that you can do a lot with the
> command-line interface.  A third theme is that the resolution of
> characters on dumb terminals is excellent due to their being
> monochrome (with no dots permanently on the screen).

I love retro computing and old hardware.  I have a fondness for my old
Apple ][+, which was my first computer.  So, a dumb terminal is cool by
itself, but what does it have to do about Linux and open source?

One thing I can't approve is a Micro$oft bash-a-thon.  It is a fallacy
of logic to state that Linux is better simply because Windows fails at
tasks A, B, and C.  I will only approve a demo that shows that Linux is
doing something cool on its own, not because Micro$oft sucks.  That's
why I liked the open source pro-audio demo last year.  Open source
competes with very expensive commercial software for a very cool task.
If someone drops by the booth and is familiar with a Windows or Mac
application that does the same or similar tasks, then they can make that
comparison on their own, but to anyone else, hey cool, Linux has a drum
machine and a multi-track recorder.  And furthermore, although it is a
Linux expo, and this is a Linux user group, I would approve a demo
running on Windows if it was a demo of open source software.  I already
have approved OpenBSD and OpenSolaris in the past, and would have no
problem with FreeBSD as well.  As a matter of fact, we might have the
guys from NetBSD again.  I know those are a lot closer relatives to
Linux than Windows, but my point is, it's not necessarily only about
Linux, but open source software in general.

> We could pass out propaganda touting the advantages of the command
> line interface.  I read some such propaganda aimed at Mac GUI users.
> The Mac has optional Linux-like command-line interface to which one
> may port linux software, but there are not enough volunteers to do
> this right.

Actually, OS/X has a BSD-like command line.  I'm not sure propaganda
supporting use of the command line is really a crowd pleaser.  I mean,
just about everyone knows Linux has a command line.  Like it or not,
GUIs are perceived as being cool.  I wouldn't want to go around just
telling the customers that their ideas are wrong.  One of the ideas we
like to promote at SCALE is that together we can achieve more, not our
way is better.

> Many years ago I had a chance to buy a real teletype cheap.  That
> would have been even more interesting to demonstrate.  It had no
> electronics and did all digital processing by electro-mechanical means
> such as by electro-magnet relays and a spinning distributor for
> converting serial data to parallel.

Again, what does this have to do with Linux or open source?

> Another theme for the booth could be the strengths and weaknesses of
> Linux.  Strengths: free in both cost and access to source code: you
> may spend more time getting it to work right but you'll learn more
> about computers in the process; works on old hardware.  Weaknesses: A
> lot of hardware inadequately supported (if at all).  But this is
> sometimes due to hardware companies' refusal to disclose the interface
> to their hardware.

As a professional Linux user, one who has used it for over 10 years, and
one who has closely followed its evolution for most of that time, I
admit there are shortcomings.  But I think it's the wrong direction to
go for SCALE and for a LUG to in any way emphasize such shortcomings.
You want to have a demo that draws people to your booth.  Once there,
you get the opportunity to tell them where and when you meet, and give
them an impression of the skill level of the various members.  User
groups are at SCALE to increase their memberships and to offer support
to their surrounding communities.  Focus on that.

> Most booths will just be biased hype promoting something by only
> emphasizing the positive.  We can be different by covering both sides.
> To do this we need someone to write up (or copy something from the
> Internet) something short about the above topic(s).  Expect people who
> stop by the booth to read it now (without just taking it
> to read later).  Then get a discussion going and hope other people
> passing by will join in.

Believe me, there will be people there who will be willing to discuss
shortcomings or tell you their horror stories about how they couldn't
install Debian, or RedHat didn't do XYZ right, or whatever.  You won't
need to go looking for them.  The challenge is to be ready for them when
they get there, and to be willing and able to help them out.

> What I would personally like to promote is the allegedly obsolete (per
> Eric Raymond) LinuxDoc sgml markup.  I would like to promote it as
> potentially more powerful and easier than using DocBook xml for
> creating documentation, websites, etc.  It needs a maintainer and more
> than that, needs more development.  Here's what Eric Raymond says
> about it:

My rough idea here is that LinuxDoc is less extensible and DocBook has
greater application and so forth.  LDP and ESR must have reasons for
wanting to dump LinuxDoc.  Both are driving forces in open source.  I
would discourage you from rowing upstream on such a mighty river.

> I obviously don't agree.  See my opinion about this at:
> http://www.lafn.org/~dave/linux/ld_vs_db.txt

Please don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to be rude.  I'm just
going to be blunt.  SCALE is not your personal soap box.  However, if
it's an issue you feel is really relevant, you can either volunteer to
give one of the talks at SCALE 6x (call for papers is already closed for
now), or volunteer to lead a BoF.

> I could have a Linuxdoc template on my dumb terminal for people
> walking by to use to create their own html documents.  They could type
> them at the booth.  Perhaps they could type a paragraph or two on what
> they think of Linux or how they are utilizing it and what problems
> they have.  I could then put the html rendition of it on my website
> for a while and tell them it'll likely be indexed by various search
> engines so the world can find it.  Or perhaps we could put this stuff on
> the sgvlug website ?? provided it's interesting.  Any junk would be
> deleted.

Again, not your soap box.  If any content is created during the expo, it
should be hosted by the LUG.  That's my opinion and it's really the
LUG's decision.  But I think you should really think about that.

However, I'm not opposed to content being created during the expo.  It's
kind of a cool idea.  The editor to use is an issue.  I know I'm
immediately deterred by seeing a row of ~ along the left column.  Others
are deterred by seeing the --:-- *mode* at the bottom.  Still others
don't know anything at all, nano will be incredibly foreign to them.

> Question: What word processors do people attending Scale know how to
> use: vim, emacs, ??  I checked on the Internet and while I could be
> wrong, I think vim is more popular.  Perhaps some only know GUI word
> processors ??  In fact, do they know how to type at all?  I suppose so
> since Linux is mainly used by servers and the people attending are not
> the run-of-the-mill desktop users like for MS Windows.  But due to
> space limitations I've never installed emacs on my PC but that's was
> when I only had a .2 GB HD.  I've now got a 3GB that's almost full and
> haven't bothered to look around for a larger one yet but I do have at
> least enough room for emacs if I were to bring my PC.

I know ed better than I know vi.  In any case, I have a totally
different definition of word processor than for text editor.  But don't
just assume everyone attending is only interested in Linux as a server.
 Many people who attend SCALE are not familiar with Linux in any role,
and as a desktop, they'll be more likely to get cozy; a command line
interface only is going to scare them away.

If your computer seriously only has a 3GB HD, please don't bring it to
SCALE!  I know, Linux fits on an old computer.  Sure, but let's try to
make it attractive to people by showing it on what is perceived as
"cool" modern hardware.  Nobody is going to get a 3GB HD today.  You may
convince them to dual boot with only a 3GB Linux partition, but HD space
has been cheap for the last ten years.  If you show someone something
totally antiquated, they might think it only runs on older hardware and
that's a turn-off.

> I'm not sure if my dumb terminal would work OK on someone else's
> computer.  It would be interesting to test it.  I revised the
> configuration file for this terminal a few times in the 1990s and once
> submitted one of these revisions to the then maintainer: Eric Raymond.
> But I'm not sure if I sent him the latest revision and it seems that
> I'm not now using the latest revision.  Don't know why, but the
> terminal seems to work OK.  The config file is complicated and
> describes in abbreviated code the hundred or so capabilities of the
> dumb terminal and what codes to send to the terminal to activate them.
> For example, what codes do you send to get bold reverse video for a
> certain phrase?  Normal reverse video ?  Underlining ?  Move the
> cursor to x,y (where the actual values of x,y are included in the code
> sent to the terminal)?  Etc.  These codes should have been
> standardized but the hundreds of different models of dumb terminals
> each did their own thing which required a lot of work creating a lot
> of config files that are seldom used today.

First of all, the ncurses library should abstract all that stuff about
sending the right code to move the cursor to x,y, or bold underline
whatever.  I'm pretty sure that's its purpose.  Anyway, don't make a
presentation out of the fact getting this to work is complicated under
the hood.  While it might be cool to see a dumb terminal driving a
modern PC, LTSP is going to be there with their own setup, and I
guarantee it will look better than a monochrome terminal.  Again, what
does this have to do with open source?  Not many shops are looking to
revitalize their store rooms full of Wyse terminals.