I'm searching the root image file of Linux 0.95 on the internet for a long time.
I cannot found it.
I found then root image of 0.12 and next new one is 0.97.
There is no 0.95 nor 0.96 root image.
Would anyone tell me where I can get it ?

On 8/11/2023 11:49 AM, Kirk James wrote:
> I'm searching the root image file of Linux 0.95 on the internet for a long time.
> I cannot found it.
> I found then root image of 0.12 and next new one is 0.97.
> There is no 0.95 nor 0.96 root image.
> Would anyone tell me where I can get it ?
>

Search engines are no longer of much use. That's why some
searches can only be resolved by using the research of others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_version_history

[374] http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/docs/history/0.95.html

Paul

In article <ub5p4i$tptf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
....
>Search engines are no longer of much use.

Why do you say that?
(serious question - I'm actually trying to get you to say and to clarify
what you mean).

Do you mean it in general, or just in technical (computer) areas?

--
They say that Trump is a stupid man's idea of a clever man, a poor man's
idea of a rich man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.

Well, Melania is an unclassy man's idea of classy.

On 8/11/2023 1:57 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <ub5p4i$tptf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>> Search engines are no longer of much use.
>
> Why do you say that?
> (serious question - I'm actually trying to get you to say and to clarify
> what you mean).
>
> Do you mean it in general, or just in technical (computer) areas?
>
If you need a list of "tat to buy", the modern search engine
is great for that. Anything with a Google Analytics plugin loaded
on the site, is likely listed.

Lots of great content, is no longer crawled and can't be found,
no matter what you try.

You have to mine, as best you can, your own self.

For example, Bing, gave me two pages of output that had something
to do with my search terms, plus many more pages of absolute crap
(nothing to do with what I asked). This is why we have search engines,
to produce pages and pages of zero-relevance material.

I got some Google results yesterday, where it only produced one
page or two pages of output. Which is the Google equivalent of the middle finger.

I remember when a puny bit of kit (Altavista, an eight core processor),
produced great output, considering the facilities provided. They're
just not trying any more.

Paul

On 8/11/23 08:49, Kirk James wrote:
> I'm searching the root image file of Linux 0.95 on the internet for a
> long time. I cannot found it. I found then root image of 0.12 and
> next new one is 0.97. There is no 0.95 nor 0.96 root image. Would
> anyone tell me where I can get it ?

Does this get close?
http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/

bootimages at http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/Linux-0.95/images/
kernels at http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/kernel/0.95/

I'm not sure what "root image" is referring to, but
DuckDuckGo gave me more satisfaction than Paul got from Bing or Google.

On 8/11/23 21:24, Paul wrote:
> On 8/11/2023 1:57 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <ub5p4i$tptf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Search engines are no longer of much use.
>>
>> Why do you say that?
>> (serious question - I'm actually trying to get you to say and to clarify
>> what you mean).
>>
>> Do you mean it in general, or just in technical (computer) areas?
>>
> If you need a list of "tat to buy", the modern search engine
> is great for that. Anything with a Google Analytics plugin loaded
> on the site, is likely listed.
>
> Lots of great content, is no longer crawled and can't be found,
> no matter what you try.
>
> You have to mine, as best you can, your own self.
>
> For example, Bing, gave me two pages of output that had something
> to do with my search terms, plus many more pages of absolute crap
> (nothing to do with what I asked). This is why we have search engines,
> to produce pages and pages of zero-relevance material.
>
> I got some Google results yesterday, where it only produced one
> page or two pages of output. Which is the Google equivalent of the middle finger.
>
> I remember when a puny bit of kit (Altavista, an eight core processor),
> produced great output, considering the facilities provided. They're
> just not trying any more.

I liked the netscape search engine, worked wonders and you got what you
searched for, nowadays you have to manually filter things as there are
so much junk sites that "has your search word" but don't have content.

Things will get worse with the so called "AI" like chatgpt (they have
nothing to do with AI, there isn't anything related to intelligence in
those) that they will add to the search engine, then you know you will
also get even more fake results.

--
//Aho

Thank you for your comment.
To run Linux 0.95 at first time, rootimage is very important.
After booting with bootimage, system ask us to change the floppy to "rootimage".
After that the rootimage is mount as "/", and booting is completed.

We can boot with rootimage-0.12 instead, but is is not sufficient,
because there is big differences between 0.12 and 0.95.
ex.) the hdd device names is changed, etc...

So I would like to find 0.95 bootimage, and to check it.

2023年8月12日土曜日 4:59:39 UTC+9 Pothos:
> On 8/11/23 08:49, Kirk James wrote:
> > I'm searching the root image file of Linux 0.95 on the internet for a
> > long time. I cannot found it. I found then root image of 0.12 and
> > next new one is 0.97. There is no 0.95 nor 0.96 root image. Would
> > anyone tell me where I can get it ?
> Does this get close?
> http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/
>
> bootimages at http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/Linux-0.95/images/
> kernels at http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/kernel/0.95/
>
> I'm not sure what "root image" is referring to, but
> DuckDuckGo gave me more satisfaction than Paul got from Bing or Google.

On 8/11/23 17:17, Kirk James wrote:
> Thank you for your comment.
> To run Linux 0.95 at first time, rootimage is very important.
> After booting with bootimage, system ask us to change the floppy to "rootimage".
> After that the rootimage is mount as "/", and booting is completed.
>
> We can boot with rootimage-0.12 instead, but is is not sufficient,
> because there is big differences between 0.12 and 0.95.
> ex.) the hdd device names is changed, etc...
>
> So I would like to find 0.95 bootimage, and to check it.

Alls I know is, thirty-one years ago, Jim says he uploaded the Linux
v0.95a rootimage to http://nic.funet.fi

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux/c/cFIquttowQk/m/mMLCdOTMZSEJ

I also found the message you showed me before.
In that FTP site there is no rootimage of 0.95.
The reason, I think, is it is very old, so the contents of the site is changed.
Almost archive sites are the same.
ex.)
http://www.oldlinux.org//Linux.old/
https://mirror.math.princeton.edu/pub/oldlinux/

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:15:22 PM UTC+9, Pothos wrote:
> On 8/11/23 17:17, Kirk James wrote:
> > Thank you for your comment.
> > To run Linux 0.95 at first time, rootimage is very important.
> > After booting with bootimage, system ask us to change the floppy to "rootimage".
> > After that the rootimage is mount as "/", and booting is completed.
> >
> > We can boot with rootimage-0.12 instead, but is is not sufficient,
> > because there is big differences between 0.12 and 0.95.
> > ex.) the hdd device names is changed, etc...
> >
> > So I would like to find 0.95 bootimage, and to check it.
> Alls I know is, thirty-one years ago, Jim says he uploaded the Linux
> v0.95a rootimage to http://nic.funet.fi
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux/c/cFIquttowQk/m/mMLCdOTMZSEJ

Aho,

> nowadays you have to manually filter things as there are so much junk
> sites that "has your search word" but don't have content.

Don't put all the blame on them (slews of, mostly hidden, SEO words should
be detectable by a(ny) self-respecting search engine).

"Search engines" nowerdays are great with adding synonyms of the provided
keywords to the search, and with their permutations generate page-upon-page
of irrelevant / nonsensical results. :-(

I wish Googles old "+" prefix would be reinstated in its former glory,
preferrably by all search engines ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 8/12/23 08:43, R.Wieser wrote:
> Aho,
>
>> nowadays you have to manually filter things as there are so much junk
>> sites that "has your search word" but don't have content.
>
> Don't put all the blame on them (slews of, mostly hidden, SEO words should
> be detectable by a(ny) self-respecting search engine).
>
> "Search engines" nowerdays are great with adding synonyms of the provided
> keywords to the search, and with their permutations generate page-upon-page
> of irrelevant / nonsensical results. :-(
>
> I wish Googles old "+" prefix would be reinstated in its former glory,
> preferrably by all search engines ...

Yeah +/- was good, there are still search engines where those still works.
Myself I haven't used google for quite many years, for me the tracking
was one of the reasons to leave it behind.

--
//Aho

On 8/12/23 05:15, Pothos wrote:
> On 8/11/23 17:17, Kirk James wrote:
>> Thank you for your comment.
>> To run Linux 0.95 at first time, rootimage is very important.
>> After booting with bootimage, system ask us to change the floppy to
>> "rootimage".
>> After that the rootimage is mount as "/", and booting is completed.
>>
>> We can boot with rootimage-0.12 instead, but is is not sufficient,
>> because there is big differences between 0.12 and 0.95.
>>    ex.) the hdd device names is changed, etc...
>>
>> So I would like to find 0.95 bootimage, and to check it.
>
> Alls I know is, thirty-one years ago, Jim says he uploaded the Linux
> v0.95a rootimage to http://nic.funet.fi
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux/c/cFIquttowQk/m/mMLCdOTMZSEJ
>
The kernel is easy to find at
http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/Linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/

Still haven't found any rootimage for the kernels, there are some
"early" slack 2 disk images, but I think much has been lost with the
file system crash which funet had on their ftp site quite many years
ago. Of course the removal of the majority of the mirrors has caused
many files been lost, the mirror of AmiNet is gone.

--
//Aho

Aho,

> Myself I haven't used google for quite many years, for me the tracking was
> one of the reasons to leave it behind.

Ah yes.

Here in Europe you select "reject all" and what do you get ? A cookie
that you cannot delete or you have to go thru the whole thing again (though
it got much less painfull when they where forced to add that "reject all"
button).

And what does that cookie look like ? It contains a date and a several
parts off of which the purpose is unknown, and combined could easily create
an unique ID. IOW, the cookie which /should/ indicate that I do not wish to
be tracked can easily be used to do just that. :-(((

For the odd times I still use Google (as the last option in a (short)list)
than I just inject that cookie into their webpage (which gets deleted at the
end of the session). Not a/the perfect solution, but better than nothing.

And oh yeah, the cookie is named "CONSENT". Do you want to make a guess to
what its data starts with ? Yup, the word "YES". Why ? No idea. But
when I first saw that it certainly made me doubt which choice I actually
made. Which might be exactly what they intended with it ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 12/08/2023 12:06, R.Wieser wrote:
> Aho,
>
>> Myself I haven't used google for quite many years, for me the tracking was
>> one of the reasons to leave it behind.
>
> Ah yes.
>
> Here in Europe you select "reject all" and what do you get ? A cookie
> that you cannot delete or you have to go thru the whole thing again (though
> it got much less painfull when they where forced to add that "reject all"
> button).
>
> And what does that cookie look like ? It contains a date and a several
> parts off of which the purpose is unknown, and combined could easily create
> an unique ID. IOW, the cookie which /should/ indicate that I do not wish to
> be tracked can easily be used to do just that. :-(((
>
> For the odd times I still use Google (as the last option in a (short)list)
> than I just inject that cookie into their webpage (which gets deleted at the
> end of the session). Not a/the perfect solution, but better than nothing.
>
> And oh yeah, the cookie is named "CONSENT". Do you want to make a guess to
> what its data starts with ? Yup, the word "YES". Why ? No idea. But
> when I first saw that it certainly made me doubt which choice I actually
> made. Which might be exactly what they intended with it ...
>
Do your searches in a private window, then the cookies will disappear
when you close it.

Raphael,

> Do your searches in a private window, then the cookies will disappear when
> you close it.

Deleting first-party cookies after closing the browser and refusing all
third-party cookies is the default configuration for my browser.

But I think you missed the part where I mentioned that "A cookie that you
cannot delete or you have to go thru the whole thing again".

.... though that was only a problem when Google just had a "accept all" and
"change settings" buttons - the latter of which landed you on a webpage
where you had to change all possible usages one-by-one. Nowerdays they
have, as mentioned, a "reject all" next to the "accept all" button.

But after having posted that previous message I realized that going thru
three redirects* and having to click that "reject all" button is preferrable
over injecting a (static, unknown purpose) cookie and not having to go thru
any redirects..

* another default config : I like to know what detours the link I'm clicking
tries to take.

Ofcourse, it helps that Google has dropped to the last position of my
(short)list (I seldom use it anymore). :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser