ANN: new Pulsonix version 3 PCB software released

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:12:35 GMT) it happened CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in <40548DCA.28B35064@yahoo.com>:

Which is quite enough to foul up software. I had an extremely low
cost application some years ago, whos primary function was to read
a miniature cassette tape recorded in the equivalent of MFM with
peculiar blocking. The interface was a single 25 cent CMOS chip,
largely to set proper disconnected defaults. The functions
included forward/reverse fast/slow (and off) motor control, head
loading, and reading BOT/EOT markers and the raw MFM. We didn't
mind tieing up the PC for the read period, so all was done in
software - including clock/data separation. This involved some
calibration against CPU clock speed and unfettered raw access to
the printer port.
In a multitasking system you cannot use software timing in any case, because

the timing loop may be interrupted by the task switch.
(Not even counting normal interrupts).
The exception is i2c protocol, it does not care a lot if you wait a while
before the next bit.
On serial better is to use a micro (cheap 2 $ PIC has serial port).
Par port is more complicated, but simple 4 bit read / 8 bit write
bidirectional with a micro is possible (else ECP etc).
These soft loop systems worked fine on MS DOS / DR DOS though, even had
a CB packet terminal program on a serial port in DOS.

As to upgrade to > win 98, I use dual boot Linux / win98, with as default
Linux, why sell yourself out to Bill Gates?
They sort of want control over you, your programs, the sites you visit, and
of cause your purse.
Not a day goes by without a new MS Windows virus warning, I have been with
Linux from SLS kernel 0.98 or so... and NEVER had ANYTHING that did any harm
how many years - let's see, just grabbed the old SLS disk 4
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 181475 Aug 3 1993 shadow.tgz -
So, that is almost 11 years, and NO attacks have succeeded in that time.
Recently I have been doing some deeper study of ipchains, the Linux packet
filtering, as I will be online 24/7 since ADSL is coming here this month
(hopefully).
Very cool stuff, you have complete control over all traffic, with just a few
simple commands, easily scriptable.
No bloat, no constant 'security patches' needed, just simple to the point
good old programming.
Linux rocks, MS sucks.
JP

 

[Dilton McGowan II]

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40548DCA.28B35064@yahoo.com...

Meindert Sprang wrote:
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
Meindert Sprang wrote:

The serial ports are completely accessible at register level
in NT and 2000. For the parallel port are numerous drivers
available that, once installed, allow any program to access
the parallel port at register level.

Only if you do it right according to NT calls. It's not only a
barrier to migration, but the extra time is distressing in a
66 MHz machine.

That is simply not true. I have written several DOS applications
in the past that access serial ports at register level, i.e.
direct access to the serial chip. These application still run
fine in Windows NT and 2000. Only direct access to the printer
port is blocked.

Which is quite enough to foul up software. I had an extremely low
cost application some years ago, whos primary function was to read
a miniature cassette tape recorded in the equivalent of MFM with
peculiar blocking. The interface was a single 25 cent CMOS chip,
largely to set proper disconnected defaults. The functions
included forward/reverse fast/slow (and off) motor control, head
loading, and reading BOT/EOT markers and the raw MFM. We didn't
mind tieing up the PC for the read period, so all was done in
software - including clock/data separation. This involved some
calibration against CPU clock speed and unfettered raw access to
the printer port.

In addition, why do you want to contribute to the MS oligarchy?

Ironically, quality, IMHO. If Linux is such a wonderful platform, why do
'still' use Windows 98 to access USENET? Perhaps it's those inexplicable KDE
lockups? Or do you use Gnome and find it lacks just enough features that it
makes you want to gag compared to what is available in the embarrassingly
unstable, yet feature rich KDE?

Go and read their current EULAs with care and mounting horror.

Quality costs, it *should* cost less since we all paid to help Microsoft get
where it is today. In a way, the public at large is the owner of Windows.
Microsoft should lower its costs and Linux would disappear like a fond
dream. Fond? Yes, I've used it on and off for 9 years and have hoped it
would get to the point that I could use it full time. I don't see that
happening.

 

[Chaos Master]

Chuck Harris posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article
<405531ae$0$2825$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:31:41 -0500:

The only time I use Windoze is to run a few legacy packages
that are too messed up to run under wine. All I have to do
to make Win98 SE SR2 crash is leave my laptop on over night.
The next morning, it will have no free memory, and won't even
be able to shut down correctly. This is caused by Explorer.

Don't use Explorer; use Litestep or BB4WIN (BlackBox for Windows) as your main
shell.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Chuck Harris]

Hi Dilton,

If you are having linux lock up on you all the time, you have
faulty hardware. Linux is very intolerant of bad memory.
It uses memory so rigorously that any flaws will wreck things.
Most of the newer PC's don't have any memory error detecting or
correcting capability so errors go unnoticed until they
kill something.

I have been running linux exclusively for about 10 years now,
and it is stable as a rock. The only time I reboot is when I
make a hardware change, or upgrade my kernel to the latest and
greatest. I have gone more than 6 months without powering my
system down, or rebooting.

Gnome did glitch abit back when it first came out, but it is
very stable now. It is far far FAR better than MS's GUI.

The only time I use Windoze is to run a few legacy packages
that are too messed up to run under wine. All I have to do
to make Win98 SE SR2 crash is leave my laptop on over night.
The next morning, it will have no free memory, and won't even
be able to shut down correctly. This is caused by Explorer.

-Chuck Harris

OBTW, I own way too much MS stock to be talking like this.
Keep using windoze, pay for my retirement!

Dilton McGowan II wrote:

In addition, why do you want to contribute to the MS oligarchy?


Ironically, quality, IMHO. If Linux is such a wonderful platform, why do
'still' use Windows 98 to access USENET? Perhaps it's those inexplicable KDE
lockups? Or do you use Gnome and find it lacks just enough features that it
makes you want to gag compared to what is available in the embarrassingly
unstable, yet feature rich KDE?


Go and read their current EULAs with care and mounting horror.



Quality costs, it *should* cost less since we all paid to help Microsoft get
where it is today. In a way, the public at large is the owner of Windows.
Microsoft should lower its costs and Linux would disappear like a fond
dream. Fond? Yes, I've used it on and off for 9 years and have hoped it
would get to the point that I could use it full time. I don't see that
happening.

 

[David Brown]

"Meindert Sprang" <mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl> wrote in message
news:4054b166@news.nb.nu...

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:405490ea$0$2798$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
Meindert Sprang wrote:
That is simply not true. I have written several DOS applications in
the
past
that access serial ports at register level, i.e. direct access to the
serial
chip. These application still run fine in Windows NT and 2000. Only
direct
access to the printer port is blocked.

Meindert

You are the first correspondent who makes that claim. I'm sure you're
right, and I want to learn from you. If I were to add a printer port at
a non-standard address, would I be able to access that too?

Let me be the second to make that claim (actually, I'm not the second, as a
search on comp.arch.embedded history will reveal - we've been through this
discussion several times before).

No. Printer ports are not accessible at register level. But on the
internet,
several drivers/services are available that, once installed, allow
programs
to access specific or simply all hardware ports. The ones for printer
ports
are most famous because of the many ulitities that program
microcontrollers
etc. through an interface that is connected to a printer port.

If you are interested, the most common driver used is "giveio". If this
driver is installed on an NT machine (including W2K and XP), then a program
can simply open a file handle to this driver, and thereafter it has full
access to the hardware on the PC. Converting a program that accesses the
parallel port into one that runs safely and quickly on NT involves nothing
more than adding this access (a couple of lines of code) and putting the
giveio driver (freely available) into its install program. This is used by
most programmers and debuggers that use the parallel port.

For programs that don't have this support, there is another less safe
solution. Install the "totalio" driver (also freely available). When you
start it, *all* programs get full hardware access. It's therefore not the
safest of solutions, and you should set the driver to manual startup (so
that you use "net start totalio" and "net stop totalio" afterwards), but it
will let any Win9x, or even Win16 or DOS program access the parallel port
directly on NT.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:54:42 GMT, Paul Russell wrote:

Leon Heller wrote:

I've been helping to beta test version 3 of Pulsonix for the last few
months. It has now been released and is available for download from:

http://www.pulsonix.com.

Without a license it's a full working demo (up to 100 pins for schematic
entry and PCB design) and Pulsonix will provide a 30 day license for a
fuller evaluation on request.


When advertising commercial software it's a good idea to state which
platform(s) and/or operating system(s) it is available for. While this
product is no doubt excellent, it appears to be be available only for
Windows.

Which is a downside. As soon as someone brings out a design package
for Linux that is at least as good as P-CAD (which I have a lot of issues
with, but nevertheless ...) I'll be first in the queue to buy it. Well,
it would have to be available for both Linux and Windows, I guess. Not
much to ask is it?

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Chuck Harris]

Hi,

It is easier and more reliable for me to just not use Windoze
at all. The only time I need it is to run my income tax programs,
so that doesn't happen all that often. Everything else I use
Linux.

Linux runs just fine for all my wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, math analyzers, PCB layout tools, Spice
simulations, gerber viewers, web browsers, email, CD players and
burners, DVD players, document scanners, printers, networking, midi
composers and players, web authoring, web hosting, the list is
endless... AND ALL OF IT IS FREE!

-Chuck Harris

Chaos Master wrote:

Chuck Harris posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article
405531ae$0$2825$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:31:41 -0500:


The only time I use Windoze is to run a few legacy packages
that are too messed up to run under wine. All I have to do
to make Win98 SE SR2 crash is leave my laptop on over night.
The next morning, it will have no free memory, and won't even
be able to shut down correctly. This is caused by Explorer.


Don't use Explorer; use Litestep or BB4WIN (BlackBox for Windows) as your main
shell.

 

[Jerry Avins]

David Brown wrote:

...

If you are interested, the most common driver used is "giveio". If this
driver is installed on an NT machine (including W2K and XP), then a program
can simply open a file handle to this driver, and thereafter it has full
access to the hardware on the PC. Converting a program that accesses the
parallel port into one that runs safely and quickly on NT involves nothing
more than adding this access (a couple of lines of code) and putting the
giveio driver (freely available) into its install program. This is used by
most programmers and debuggers that use the parallel port.

For programs that don't have this support, there is another less safe
solution. Install the "totalio" driver (also freely available). When you
start it, *all* programs get full hardware access. It's therefore not the
safest of solutions, and you should set the driver to manual startup (so
that you use "net start totalio" and "net stop totalio" afterwards), but it
will let any Win9x, or even Win16 or DOS program access the parallel port
directly on NT.

Thank you. Knowing makes all the difference! On my way to highschool one
morning (bus, past the newsstand to the subway), I read the about the
astounding invention of point-contact transistors. The NY Times article
included a technical discussion and an illustration. I read it several
times. When I got home, I made one. It was oscillating before supper.
Knowing makes all the difference.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:32:13 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Chaos Master wrote:
Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article
4052d7a8$0$10149$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sat, 13 Mar 2004
09:43:04 - 0000:


If you want another shock look at this abortion:

http://www.otl.co.uk/

The developer seems to have a very high opinion of it, but it
doesn't even have rubber-banding on the connections!

And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me
after this).

Why?


I will note that I have not yet "upgraded" my MS VC++ to the latest with
.net. This is because it wants to eliminated support for 95/ME etc. Too
many are still using the older systems for me to restrict SS in that way
just yet. .net, is of course, just another attempt for MS to flog,
essentially, useless new product.

Actually Kevin,

ME should be fine for .Net, 98 Is..ME is newer than 98.

If I'm correct only 95 isn't supported...and the last time I checked,
it's the year 2004.

Yea...backwards compatability is great...but come on!!! There *IS* a
limit! Heck, MS doesn't even officially support 98 anymore from what I
know...

Same w/ everyone complaining their 1988 DOS communication programs
don't run under Win 2k/XP.....

Heck I have a .Net communication application we use to update our
PIC's flash memory....virtuall all of our customers use it.

Problems: None...ever. I've yet to get a single phone call w/ a
problem in 2 years of using it.

What's the difference? It's UP TO DATE! Nuff said

Stephan

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:36:03 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com>
wrote:

Hi,

It is easier and more reliable for me to just not use Windoze
at all. The only time I need it is to run my income tax programs,
so that doesn't happen all that often. Everything else I use
Linux.

Linux runs just fine for all my wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, math analyzers, PCB layout tools, Spice
simulations, gerber viewers, web browsers, email, CD players and
burners, DVD players, document scanners, printers, networking, midi
composers and players, web authoring, web hosting, the list is
endless... AND ALL OF IT IS FREE!

So ok here's a suggestion. Why don't you start working for free too?

I fail to understand how people run around expecting all software to
be for free, expecting the tools they work and make their living with
to be for free.

Do you work for free? Didn't think so.

Stephan

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:44:51 -0500, Stephan Rose
<ker-spam-mos@kermos-no-spam-reversed.net> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:36:03 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com
wrote:

Hi,

It is easier and more reliable for me to just not use Windoze
at all. The only time I need it is to run my income tax programs,
so that doesn't happen all that often. Everything else I use
Linux.

Linux runs just fine for all my wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, math analyzers, PCB layout tools, Spice
simulations, gerber viewers, web browsers, email, CD players and
burners, DVD players, document scanners, printers, networking, midi
composers and players, web authoring, web hosting, the list is
endless... AND ALL OF IT IS FREE!


So ok here's a suggestion. Why don't you start working for free too?

I fail to understand how people run around expecting all software to
be for free, expecting the tools they work and make their living with
to be for free.

Do you work for free? Didn't think so.

Stephan

Plus Win98 sucked the big one. Observing the problems my wife had I
bypassed it entirely, went straight from Win95 to Win2K, which I think
is a great OS.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty-four?

 

[Chuck Harris]

Hi Stephan,

Gee, you must work for microsoft. Those of us involved in the
free software movement don't work for free. We contribute what
we are best at, so that all can reap the rewards of our efforts.

Software is like ideas. How much did you pay Archemedes for his
efforts? How about Newton? Aristotle? Einstein? Steinmetz?
Lister? Carson? You paid nothing, yet you reap the benefit of
their efforts every day.

I get paid to write software. I get paid to design hardware.
But I also contribute to the free software movement. I think of
it as giving something back to society for letting me live as
nicely as I do.

What do you give back?

-Chuck Harris


Stephan Rose wrote:

Linux runs just fine for all my wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, math analyzers, PCB layout tools, Spice
simulations, gerber viewers, web browsers, email, CD players and
burners, DVD players, document scanners, printers, networking, midi
composers and players, web authoring, web hosting, the list is
endless... AND ALL OF IT IS FREE!



So ok here's a suggestion. Why don't you start working for free too?

I fail to understand how people run around expecting all software to
be for free, expecting the tools they work and make their living with
to be for free.

Do you work for free? Didn't think so.

Stephan

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:23:30 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com>
wrote:

Hi Stephan,

Gee, you must work for microsoft. Those of us involved in the
free software movement don't work for free. We contribute what
we are best at, so that all can reap the rewards of our efforts.

Nope, I don't work for microsoft. But I do use their products.

Software is like ideas. How much did you pay Archemedes for his
efforts? How about Newton? Aristotle? Einstein? Steinmetz?
Lister? Carson? You paid nothing, yet you reap the benefit of
their efforts every day.

I'm sure their efforts paid off for them personally....

I get paid to write software. I get paid to design hardware.
But I also contribute to the free software movement. I think of
it as giving something back to society for letting me live as
nicely as I do.

What do you give back?

I'm a regular in a C# helping channel and help many people daily with
problems. I've even on the odd occasion contributed source files where
relevant. Such as my communications engine for serial port
communication just to give one example.

Other day I just gave someone my entire macro file (written in VB)
that I wrote to simply and/or automate a few tasks in the Visual
Studio IDE.

So...I do give back...but giving back to me does not mean writing my
software for free. To me it means helping individuals who ask for
help. If I'm capable of helping them that is.

And, the odd little small utility app that took a day or so to
write...who cares. I got no problem giving that to someone.

But....to "contribute" a massive project that takes months just to get
a starting foundation? That'll take over a year to truly evolve to a
reasonable level? That I spend 12 hours a day on? THAT I am supposed
to give out for free?...no thanks. To an individual...yes, I actually
would do that under the right circumstances. To the remainder of the
world...no. I got bills to pay.

Stephan

 

[Stephan Rose]

Plus Win98 sucked the big one. Observing the problems my wife had I
bypassed it entirely, went straight from Win95 to Win2K, which I think
is a great OS.

2K and XP are both great. Can't complain about either one....

Stephan

 

[Chaos Master]

No B.O. número <4055b144$0$2797$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, de Mon, 15 Mar 2004
08:36:03 -0500, consta que Chuck Harris escreveu no sci.electronics.cad :

Linux runs just fine for all my wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, math analyzers, PCB layout tools, Spice
simulations, gerber viewers, web browsers, email, CD players and
burners, DVD players, document scanners, printers, networking, midi
composers and players, web authoring, web hosting, the list is
endless... AND ALL OF IT IS FREE!

But some things that I use aren't supported: mainly webcam/voice chatting via
MSN or YM and P2P programs (I won't consider using Wine as this is cheating).

Otherwise it is good.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Chaos Master]

No B.O. número <pvic50lgq7pltei26p361bcdilnmre0eq9@4ax.com>, de Mon, 15 Mar 2004
19:36:38 -0500, consta que Stephan Rose escreveu no sci.electronics.cad :

Plus Win98 sucked the big one. Observing the problems my wife had I
bypassed it entirely, went straight from Win95 to Win2K, which I think
is a great OS.

2K and XP are both great. Can't complain about either one....

2K is one of the best OS'es made by Microsoft, IMHO.

PS: I just got lucky with Win98. LOL.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Robert Wessel]

"Meindert Sprang" <mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl> wrote in message news:<40544519$1@news.nb.nu>...

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:40541909$0$2791$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...

Windows 95 and 98 let you control the serial and parallel ports without
hassle. Many programs that do physical I/O won't run on NT derivatives.

The serial ports are completely accessible at register level in NT and 2000.
For the parallel port are numerous drivers available that, once installed,
allow any program to access the parallel port at register level.

Actually they're not. For *DOS* applications, a virtual device driver
provides the appearance of direct access. In short, what happens is
the application issues an I/O instruction, when generates a protection
fault. The VDD will have registered itself as a handler for some
range of ports (for example 3f8-3ff for COM1), and it gets a message
that an application has issued a byte/word/dword in/out to port
0xABCD, along with the contents of the registers. The VDD fakes the
operation, updates the registers, returns, and the application is
(more-or-less) none the wiser.

But, as you mentioned, there are drives (for example giveio.sys),
which will allow direct access, although they're certainly not there
by default.

 

[Chuck Harris]

Hi Stephan,

That's fine. I am glad to see that you are also writing
free software.

No one in the free software movement has ever asked you to give
away anything you don't want to. No one has asked microslop
(why would they?) to give away any of their software.

So, why does it bother you so that some people have more to give?

Some of this software comes about as the result of Master's Thesis
projects in CS. I can think of a very nice java implementation that
was started that way. Kermit also comes to mind. Some comes about
by way of the philanthropy of larger companies, and foundations.
IBM, Sun, Hp, and just about every large company you know of have
contributed. You do know that they paid their programmers to write
this stuff, don't you?

Other software comes about as miscellaneous libraries and utilities
that are generated to aid proprietary software projects. I have
contributed several utilities in that way. Whenever I do a paid
software job, I retain the rights to the utilities and libraries that
I create. I use these in other jobs, and I donate some of the more
generally useful ones.

I do the same thing with hardware. I give demonstrations, and build
goodies for the local schools. Just for the fun of it. Perhaps some
kid will get the spark of inspiration to do something truly grand from
one of my deeds.

There is no need for you to be hostile to the free software movement,
not any more than there is a need for you to be hostile to folks that
donate time and money to their community. That is all we are doing.

A much better use of our free time than watching TV.

-Chuck Harris

Stephan Rose wrote:

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:23:30 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com


What do you give back?


I'm a regular in a C# helping channel and help many people daily with
problems. I've even on the odd occasion contributed source files where
relevant. Such as my communications engine for serial port
communication just to give one example.

Other day I just gave someone my entire macro file (written in VB)
that I wrote to simply and/or automate a few tasks in the Visual
Studio IDE.

So...I do give back...but giving back to me does not mean writing my
software for free. To me it means helping individuals who ask for
help. If I'm capable of helping them that is.

And, the odd little small utility app that took a day or so to
write...who cares. I got no problem giving that to someone.

But....to "contribute" a massive project that takes months just to get
a starting foundation? That'll take over a year to truly evolve to a
reasonable level? That I spend 12 hours a day on? THAT I am supposed
to give out for free?...no thanks. To an individual...yes, I actually
would do that under the right circumstances. To the remainder of the
world...no. I got bills to pay.

Stephan

 

[Chuck Harris]

Hi CM,

You need to look a little harder. There have been video phone
applications and P2P programs available for linux for several years
now. I can't say that they work with with MSN, though.

-Chuck Harris

Chaos Master wrote:

But some things that I use aren't supported: mainly webcam/voice chatting via
MSN or YM and P2P programs (I won't consider using Wine as this is cheating).

Otherwise it is good.

 

[francesco]

Chaos Master <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c35nhc$24hm45$7@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de>...

No B.O. número <4055b144$0$2797$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, de Mon, 15 Mar 2004
08:36:03 -0500, consta que Chuck Harris escreveu no sci.electronics.cad :

Linux runs just fine for all my wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, math analyzers, PCB layout tools, Spice
simulations, gerber viewers, web browsers, email, CD players and
burners, DVD players, document scanners, printers, networking, midi
composers and players, web authoring, web hosting, the list is
endless... AND ALL OF IT IS FREE!

But some things that I use aren't supported: mainly webcam/voice chatting via
MSN or YM and P2P programs (I won't consider using Wine as this is cheating).

Otherwise it is good.

Regarding P2P, there is a good version of eMule under Linux. It is
call aMule, connects to ed2k network, shares with other eMule users
and performs quite well. Try it.