Lookng for Unix-like OS that will recognize my wireless card

t2000kw@nospam.invalid wrote:
> wireless card, a Netgear WG511T.
>
> Second, does any of the BSD distros support wireless cards "out of the

GENERIC seems to have explicit support for a number of cards,
none of them noted as "Netgear". If the card is a Wavelan clone
it'll likely work, other names listed in the default kernel
config file are Atheros, BayStack, Ralink. No personal experince
with any of them.

> box"? To be successful I have to have a wireless connection working
> right away (after entering the WEP key). I won't be able to download
> support programs for the wireless card since I won't be able to
> connect to the Internet. I would, however, be able to do so with the
> desktop computer, but I don't think I can count on sending anythng
> over the home network (perhaps on a CDROM using sneakernet).

If your home network supports a DHCP controller (most do) you can
put the system on the Net using nat, among other methods. Sneakernet
is apt to be a pain; FreeBSD is designed around Net access.

Good luck, best not to call the *bsd branches "distros".
Well, maybe that's the right word, but it'll cause some distress.

8-)

bob prohaska

t2000kw@nospam.invalid wrote:
> (You may see a repeat of this message on some of the related BSD
> newsgroups since there are a few different distros out there of BSD).

It's not like distros, but as you come from the linux-world I
understand that you see it that way.

> I have this scenario. I am considering trying a version of BSD instead
> of Linux.

I think that's a good choice because of your hardware.

> Old Dell laptop, about 3.5 Gigs of space available on a small hard
> drive. No option to add a larger hard drive at this time, no
> additional investment can be made right now. Processor speed is 300
> mhz (Pentium II), memory 380 something MB.

That's ok for most of *BSD's.

> I have tried Ubuntu and Dreamlinux, both of which recognize my
> wireless card, a Netgear WG511T.
>
> The problem is that the version of Wine that installs with these locks
> up the system. To use my preferred Email/Newsgroup reader program,
> Agent, I need to have a Windows "emulator" like Wine to install and
> use my program.

Are you sure? At first, wine eats your rammemory and you have to
deal with problems in both wine and windows when you use it. Your
prefered mail/newsgroup reader? If it's outlook you can get the
same with thunderbird, except the viruses and trojans if you are
under *BSD. You haven't tried thunderbird under ubuntu? I think
it's very easy to install in ubuntu.

So, even though those two distros support my hardware,
> something is incompatible with Wine. I do have a dual-boot setup with
> Windows 98 SE but prefer to stay out of there if I can.

Are you using win98 for something? I don't think there is
anything there that you can't do with ubuntu.

> Wine works fine in Ubuntu on my desktop, so that's probably what I'll
> stick with on that computer.

You have a little more power on that computer I assume? But I
think that you can setup an environment that you like with only
ubuntu.

> First, is there a Windows emulator that works with BSD like it does in
> Linux?
>
> Is it different or the same program (Wine)?

It's very much the same, but under different conditions. Have you
looked at PCBSD? It's very easy to install and it handles a lot
of things. www.pcbsd.org (I think).

> Second, does any of the BSD distros support wireless cards "out of the
> box"? To be successful I have to have a wireless connection working
> right away (after entering the WEP key). I won't be able to download
> support programs for the wireless card since I won't be able to
> connect to the Internet. I would, however, be able to do so with the
> desktop computer, but I don't think I can count on sending anythng
> over the home network (perhaps on a CDROM using sneakernet).

I'll be suprised if not all of BSD finds your card. The best shot
can be NetBSD, but then you will have a little to learn before
you can set it up (well, I did so it's not impossible).

> Any comments on tis, suggestions on which distro to try, or am I out
> on both counts (Windows emulation and wireless card support)?

You can take a look at their sites and see what hardware they
support and see if you can find yours. I think it's a good chance
that all BSD's support your hardware. If you want an easy install
and a lot of opportunities to replace windows programs, take a
look at pcbsd.

/Mats

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:50:48 -0400, t2000kw@nospam.invalid wrote:

>up the system. To use my preferred Email/Newsgroup reader program,
>Agent, I need to have a Windows "emulator" like Wine to install and

I'm in a similar boat. I'd love to use Agent (and I probably can under
Wine). But before I resort to that, I'm trying an alternative - Pan.
It's based on Agent and seems pretty good so far.There are a few
things I don't like about it, but they're pretty minor. The latest
version is in the FreeBSD ports collection. The Pan web site is
http://pan.rebelbase.com.

Graham

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:45:02 +0000, bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:

> ... best not to call the *bsd branches "distros".

That sentiment has been expressed more than once in comp.unix.bsd.*.

So, please remind me what the D in BSD stands for again?

That's right, terms like "Slackware Linux Distribution" were originated in
direct emulation of "Berkeley Software Distribution".

msm wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:45:02 +0000, bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
>
>> ... best not to call the *bsd branches "distros".
>
> That sentiment has been expressed more than once in comp.unix.bsd.*.
>
> So, please remind me what the D in BSD stands for again?
>
> That's right, terms like "Slackware Linux Distribution" were originated in
> direct emulation of "Berkeley Software Distribution".

Chuckle. Yes - this certainly is a valid point, IMHO. I think where most in
the 'BSD community separate the meaning of the two is that Linux is only a
kernel while 'BSD is a complete operating system. The 'distro' in Linux is
the rest of the software that makes up a system that gets tacked on by each
distro originator. From an end users perspective this is a blurry gray area
at best, and probably a needless splitting of hair at the worst.

-Jason

On 19 Jun 2007 15:09:12 +0200
msm wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:45:02 +0000, bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
>
> > ... best not to call the *bsd branches "distros".
>
> That sentiment has been expressed more than once in comp.unix.bsd.*.
>
> So, please remind me what the D in BSD stands for again?

:) Maybe it's just an objection to the abbreviated form distro
instead of distribution. I know that abbreviation irritates me, probably a
sign of age.

--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:45:02 GMT, bob prohaska's usenet account
wrote:

>
>GENERIC seems to have explicit support for a number of cards,
>none of them noted as "Netgear". If the card is a Wavelan clone
>it'll likely work, other names listed in the default kernel
>config file are Atheros, BayStack, Ralink. No personal experince
>with any of them.
>

I believe it uses the Atheros chip in it. It does work with Ubuntu and
DreamLinux except that Wine won't work--only on that laptop.

>Good luck, best not to call the *bsd branches "distros".
>Well, maybe that's the right word, but it'll cause some distress.


I can change my terminology. I thought that it would be termed
similarly since they (BSD and Linux) are both Unix-compatible
operating systems and close cousins.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:59:15 GMT, Mats
wrote:

>> The problem is that the version of Wine that installs with these locks
>> up the system. To use my preferred Email/Newsgroup reader program,
>> Agent, I need to have a Windows "emulator" like Wine to install and
>> use my program.
>
>Are you sure? At first, wine eats your rammemory and you have to
>deal with problems in both wine and windows when you use it. Your
>prefered mail/newsgroup reader? If it's outlook you can get the
>same with thunderbird, except the viruses and trojans if you are
>under *BSD. You haven't tried thunderbird under ubuntu? I think
>it's very easy to install in ubuntu.

Yes, I'm sure. I use Agent email/newsreader. I don't like Thunderbird,
Outlook, Outlook Express (tried them all and others, too), and any of
the other email programs out there. Agent is much, much more
versatile, has a great scripting language, etc., etc. It's just not
available in a Linux version. And I have a few (only a few) other
programs that I prefer the Windows version of also.

http://www.forteinc.com/agent/

There is a newsreader that "looks" a lot like Agent for that purpose
only but it's not as advanced.

If my wife is to use the computer at all, it HAS to have Agent on it.
I have Agent working under Ubuntu using Wine on the desktop computer
with less memory than the laptop has. But it is a much faster
computer, too.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:59:15 GMT, Mats
wrote:

>It's very much the same, but under different conditions. Have you
>looked at PCBSD? It's very easy to install and it handles a lot
>of things. www.pcbsd.org (I think).

I read about it at lunch time at work today and will be taking a look
at it.