Linux-Advocacy Digest #613, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 14:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (5X3)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Dave)
Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:52:37 GMT
On 13 Mar 2000 02:32:46 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 12 Mar 2000 14:30:17 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>>> A serious developer should be dissuaded so easily by the lack
>>> of eye candy and hand holding interfaces.
>
>Here goes Jedi again with his
> "if you can't be bothered doing it the hard way, just get lost".
>
>What would Jedi know about "serious developers" anyway ? Who the hell is
They can and do build their own tools.
That separates computer scientists and engineers from
data entry clerks. I don't know about you but, my
profressors made it clear to me that anything that the
machine could do for me I should be able to do for myself
as well if need be.
Someone has to be able to code resource editors after all.
>he to go judging which developers are and aren't "serious" ? I've yet to
>see *any* code with the name "Jedi" attached ( apart from a one line shell
>script posted to usenet -- and he didn't even get it right )
Attack the man rather than the idea: how big of you.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 Mar 2000 10:53:12 -0700
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > My point is that a good OS should embrace not only the older basic
> > > technologies like command line support, but also the more advanced
> > > technological innovations like the modern GUI paradigm and the
> > > component object model. If you ask a typical UNIX bigot why you
> > > can't load a file into Emacs by dragging a file object onto the
> > > Emacs window, he'll smugly answer that UNIX people wouldn't use such
> > > a capability even if it were there. These people are actually proud
> > > of their insularity and lack of sophistication.
> >
> > Just so you know, I can drag files onto emacs using GNOME. ;)
> >
> > We're getting there. In order to do without all the baggage that
> > Windows carries, we have to re-implement a LOT of components.
>
> Eureka! I don't have time to download every daily build, so I
> suppose I haven't installed a recent enough version. When did this
> capability appear?
It's been there for a while, at least since October GNOME.
> > I just wish that Microsoft would opensource Windows 2000. It would be
> > a dream to tinker with some of the warts on this otherwise nice
> > operating system.
>
> I disagree. I don't want Windows open sourced because open sourcing
> it would guarantee that it would survive (in one form or another)
> and I don't want that. (I also strongly oppose the idea of open
> sourcing as an antitrust remedy.) The DOS-think legacy issues
> around Windows are much worse than anything in UNIX and I expect the
> (gigantic) sourcecode base reflects that. What I favor is simply
> importing the best ideas into Linux in fresh, lean, modern
> implementations, and letting Windows itself die. The only misgiving
> I have is that one way or another Windows will probably cease to be
> so dominant within 5 years. At that point, who's going to light a
> fire under Linux developers asses?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Windows 2000 is a
nifty operating system, but unfortunately they obfuscated the logon
process (actually, joining the domain) so as to break Samba 2.0. It
works fine in the alpha branches (ntdom), but the filesharing is out
of sync with the stable branch.
So, either I use alpha-quality ntdom code, for which the primary
author even discourages in a production environment, or I don't use
Windows 2000. We're not using Windows 2000 -- but we would be
ordering it on new machines with it if I could just tweak the code a
little bit.
I don't care if Windows lives or dies; I'd rather be able to fix the
(what I consider) bugs myself if I need to.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE?
Date: 14 Mar 2000 02:03:02 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:07:43 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Marada C. Shradrakaii" wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone that
> > >would argue otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
> >
> > It depends on how you test it, and how you use it. If I only use my machine
> > for running a specific app with a given level of load for no more than X hours
> > at a time, I can test that app/load for X hours and be fairly sure that if it
> > passes that, my lighter use won't cause trouble.
>
> Wrong, you can not be sure that you have tested 100% of the instructions
> on the processor over the entire temperature range of the chip.
Unless you have stuff on your computer you cannot afford to lose, then
yes, you should not overclock since you can't test all those things.
However...
> You have
> not tested all of the pipelining logic of the processor. You have not
> verified that the chip is working.
On, say, a gaming rig, if it plays the games perfectly, then it's
considered 'working'. What's the worst that can happen?
> It may only crash once a week, or
> once every couple of days.
Most overclockers would deem that unacceptable and fall back to a
slower setting.
> You have not even verified that the floating
> point output will match the floating point output of a non overclocked
> CPU.
No, but this isn't really important to most people who overclock. Just
so long as their programs/games run correctly they're happy. Nobody would
overclock something they can't risk failure on.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:00:11 GMT
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 00:03:20 -0600, Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >> That sounds like they could stand to do some fundemental
>> >> re-architecting. This sounds as silly as IE on Solaris
>> >> requiring a win32 subsystem to go along with it.
>
>It probably makes it easier to maintain the look-and-feel of the
>cross-platform app, and I can imagine that it is in their interest to have
>their own cross-platform 'Foundation' for their apps.
They shouldn't have any problems keeping the bits of their
app abstracted from each other even if they're going for
this 'universal look and feel thing'.
>
>> >Probably a lower priority than OSX and carbon, at least in the short term.
>>
>> Then why should the rest of us non-mac users put up with
>> Quicktime at all, if apple can't be bothered to make at
>> least halfway decent vendor-lock decoder?
>
>High-quality digital media content available on the web from the major
>outlets. If not for the Episode I trailer, I think few Linux people
>actually wanted Quicktime :-)
Except we don't need Apple for that. Apple's vendor-lock
formats can give us a slight boon when it comes to file
transfer sizes but, that's about it.
Their format as it is commonly exploited isn't that interesting
really. That's one of the more frustrating aspects of them conning
people into making media a Mac/Windows only club.
>
>> >> They're quite the hypocrites when they drone on about 'freeing'
>> >> an OS core which they got most of for free to begin with...
>
>In what they do or say, I think they've always been in the 'Open Source'
>camp as opposed to the 'Free Software' camp, if you understand the
>difference.
They're more in the 'open source as an abuse of intent' camp.
They're precisely the sort of crass corporate entities that
RMS warned us about when the whole 'open source' name game
was getting started.
Infact there has been considerable argument over whether or
not what Apple has released is infact 'open source' as those
who coined the term think of it.
>
>> >They opened up a little bit more than just Mach+BSD. QTSS, NetInfo
>> >OpenPlay. Maybe something else I missed.
>> Like I said: MOST of what Apple tooted it's own horn about
>> giving away was corporate welfare from others...
>
>Isn't that just how open source software is supposed to work ?
No. Entites are supposed to exploit it, not take credit for it.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Date: 13 Mar 2000 12:00:56 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd guess that 7.0 is in fact a response to Caldera's install, trying
>> to out-do them in user friendliness.
>
>It's not clear to me what your point is. The fact that Mandrake attempted to
>respond to an appealing feature that Caldera had first, merits an endorsement
>that Caldera itself doesn't get?
Yes, it's called competition, and in the open-source world it moves
very fast. As soon as any distribution makes a change, the others
leapfrog them. But the real point is that you should not complain
about any vendor's old product - especially when a new version
is available for free download or on cheap knock-off CDs.
>That's kind of like how Microsoft copies a
>competitor's idea, and is then hailed by the magazines it advertises in as
>"revolutionary." Well that kind of thing turned my stomach back when Windows
>mattered to me, and I sure don't want to see it happen again with Linux.
Please explain your idea of how software should evolve. No one has
ever gotten it right the first time and no company has ever
kept innovations coming without being driven by competition from
others. Microsoft was perfectly happy to go years and years without
even adding the MSDOS 5.0 features - until someone else had them.
>> Most people who aren't on a crusade first make an attempt to find
>> out what they did wrong or which piece of hardware is incompatible
>> with the software.
>
>Hmm, let's see. I install 2 different versions of Mandrake on three different
>machines, in a couple of cases multiple times, and it fails every single time
>within a week. I install Caldera and Red Hat on the same machines and have no
>problem. And I'm supposed to blame the hardware in a laptop bought in 1995, a
>different laptop bought in 1998, and a desktop bought in 1999, for giving
>similar failures on only one of three distributions? Any ideas?
The thing in common seems to be the user. Everyone else I know did
not have any such failures, but they installed the available updates for
the older version... I don't think any are necessary yet for 7.0.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:02:33 GMT
On 13 Mar 2000 03:00:10 GMT, Matt Kennel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:41:05 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:On 8 Mar 2000 21:32:46 GMT, Salvatore Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>On 8 Mar 2000 14:06:09 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>>Why didn't Apple make a Quicktime player for Linux?
>:>
>:>Linux has 4% of the desktop and 25% of servers shipped last year. What
>:
>: A Linux port would also cover the gruntwork for any posix
>: compatible system including ALL the other Unixen and quite
>: likely BeOS.
>
>Disagree. POSIX doesn't cover the sort of high-performance graphics
>models and bitmap models and color models that a Quicktime player would
>need, nor any of the interface.
Why? Most of the gruntwork in video and audio decoding is
computational. Bit banging hardware really has little to
do with it. Although things like hardware accelerated
YUV->RGB host to videoram blits can be quite useful. The
shouldn't be a showstopper on current CPUs.
>
>X helps a little with the first, but that's not BeOS.
>
>: This is the real rub. Linux developers are willing to do this
>: work, even under NDA, yet they're being snubbed. Apple isn't
>: even being open with it's CODEC licencing, nevermind source
>: or specs...
>
>annoying, but I heard the codec's weren't all theirs.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:07:00 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:58:19 GMT, Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:29:25 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>And what percent of the desktop market is that? I think if you added
>>>BeOS desktops, all *nix system on the desktop, and all Linux desktops,
>>>you'll still be looking at a maket that is less that 1/10 the size of
>>>the windows desktop market.
>>
>> The rest of the desktop sans MacOS isn't a half bad chunk
>> of the pie actually.
>
>For the effort needed to get onto the market it sounds like a very
>bad business decision. Lots of effort for 1/10 the potential market.
Actually, the code is already there. It just doesn't appear
to be very well abstracted within itself. You are vastly
overstating the effort involved.
>
>>Plus there's cross compatibility with
>> the PSX/2, imbedded systems and anyone else platform not
>> owned by a company that annoyed the FSF too badly...
>
>What does the PSX/2 have in common with *nix/X11?
gcc
>
>> Then why should the rest of us non-mac users put up with
>> Quicktime at all, if apple can't be bothered to make at
>> least halfway decent vendor-lock decoder?
>
>Well MPEG4 should be pretty open. The MPEG4 file format _is_ QuickTime
>so I think it is pretty safe to assume anything produced in QuickTime
>could be published in a version that would support any MPEG4 capable
>client.
>
>>>They opened up a little bit more than just Mach+BSD. QTSS, NetInfo
>>>OpenPlay. Maybe something else I missed.
>>
>> Like I said: MOST of what Apple tooted it's own horn about
>> giving away was corporate welfare from others...
>
><sarcasm>
>Yeah... it's almost as bad as Redhat/Corel/SuSE et al taking all that
>open source from around the world, sticking it on a CD and selling it
>for profit.
></sarcasm>
I got my versions of Redhat, Corel & Suse gratis.
Mind you, they don't make take credit for things that were
never theirs to begin with. When Linux companies try to pull
such stunts they tend to be ripped apart in fairly short order.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:13:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (hot_offer) wrote:
>
> Everyone complains about Microsoft
> putting the Internet Explorer icon on the
> desktop and including it with the installation
> of their operating system.
> Monopolistic and controlling.
Specifically, the Findings of Fact state that Microsoft has
established a Monopoly of the Operating System Market, has
used this monopoly to extend that monopoly control into
applications, and internet standards. Microsoft had stated
a goal of gaining a monopoly of the Internet.
To make it more interesting, they used software written by
Marc Andreeson for the National Center for Supercomputing Agency
(NCSA Mosaic) to drive Netscape - software written by Marc Andreeson
for his company and his publicly held company - out of the market.
More importantly, Microsoft used it's control of Internet Explorer
to add proprietary extensions intended to force the industry to
adopt proprietary Microsoft-only technology used exclusively in it's
Microsoft Office Suite as de facto standards while circumventing
all established standards processes. The most dramatic example was
Active-X.
Microsoft was reaping all of the benefits of Open Source while doing
everything in it's power to drive Open Source and it's supporters out
of business.
Finally Microsoft used it's monopoly to punish manufacturers who made
any attempt to support any form of competition. This included actions
that cost IBM nearly $5 billion for supporting OS/2 and Lotus
SmartSuite. This included the threat of revoking all Operating System
licenses for on of Compaq's lines because they placed Netscape
on the initial browser screen.
> And they give it away for free.
They bundled it with an operating system costing nearly $200 retail
to protect an Office Suite costing nearly $600 retail which is only
available on Microsoft Windows 9x and NT.
The "free" browser prevented the establishment of open standards and
competition that could have created a market environment similar to
that of the Linux market where several office suites are available
for as little as $20 for commercial versions.
Microsoft used it's control of standards to prevent the proliferation
of Linux - a system which was available to Manufacturers for as little
as $2 per commercially installed version, as little as $20 retail.
Not exactly "free". In fact, Microsoft had states a goal of collecting
nearly 2% of the gross national product in "Viggorish". Specifically
they sought 20% of the commissions paid to realtors, travel agents,
employments agencies, consulting firms, and even retailers, advertising
agencies, and publishers.
Finally, Microsoft was threatening to extend it's pretatory
control over the press (MSNBC, CNBC, Satellite, and Cable).
During the defense phase of it's trial, MSNBC devoted almost all
of it's discressionary prime-time to covering the Monica Lewinski
affiar, which included publishing illegally obtained information,
illegally conducted interrogations, and illegal lines of disclosure
without exposing the nature of these disclosures in such a way that
all other media had to cover it.
Simply put, Microsoft attempted support the overthrow of the government
for the purpose of diverting attention from it's federal court trial.
> Yet, install any distribution of Linux
> and they put the Netscape Navigator icon
> on the desktop and it is included with the
> installation of the Linux operating
> system. It is installed by DEFAULT.
> And they give it away for free.
Most versions of Linux offer complimentary versions of
Netscape, Lynx, the KDE web browser, and the GNOME web browser.
Each has it's own support. In addition, there is also Mozilla,
and NCSA Mosaic as well as Arena. All of these browsers support
industry standard protocols, industry standard formats, and industry
standard extensions. Netscape does offer more proprietary extensions
and has better firewall support.
> Hmmm....see the obvious parallel.
Let's see. We have a Linux workstation package that has the
support of perhaps 8-10% of the global market including Netscape
among a minimum of 3 browsers, in a configuration that encourages
competition. In addition, Linux promotes competition between 4 office
suites, and supports numerous publicly established standards specificed
in sufficient detail to allow implementation in Open Source technology.
We have Microsoft who controls 98% of the U.S. Market through the
combination of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office (which gives
them effective control over the Mac) and does so no ability to
monitor protocols, message flow, and is not accountable to any
public standards organizations for it's "strategic" extensions.
> Amazing similar isn't it?
About the only thing that is similiar is that you two companies
who have included web browsers with their standard distributions.
(by the way, Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, and Corel all have licensing
agreements with Netscape that provide benefit to the corporation
that owns the Netscape code).
> And yet every Linux Lacky will claim this is TOTALLY different.
If the day ever comes when every member and contributor to every
package included with a Linux Distribution is eventually acquired
by a single corporation, I would agree that these would be the same.
Unfortunately, this would mean "mergers and aquisitions" of nearly
4000 organisations - including a number of non-profit organizations,
and nearly 35,000 contributing employees along with 17,000 marketing
and promotion people. Add to this, about 20,000 support staff not
covered by the previous two catagories.
At the Linux Expo in San Franciso, in a audience of 6000 people,
nearly 5000 had been contributors. Linux Torvalds asked us all
to stand up so that he could thank us for our support.
> No it's not. Same thing, same reasons, same way.
> But denial is far easier to swallow in the Linux camp
> apparently.
If one of the 8 Linux distributors ever succeeds in establishing
a monopoly, we'll probably turn around and support BSD. Fortunately,
getting a Monopoly on Linux would be almost like getting a monopoly
on AIR.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 13 Mar 2000 18:27:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8ah2mk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> For the hardware I described every step is necessary. Please tell me
>>> what step is not necessary if you think I am wrong.
>>
>>Can you allow me to make up a hardware/pre-existing software setup that is
>>as massively contrieved and specifically hostile to a linux setup as humanly
>>possible and then give you ever single possible option step to an
>>idiots-guide-to-setting-up-an-OS and find it relates to... what again?
>>
>>
> It is not "massively contrived". It is a standard, off-the-shelf,
> Gateway 2300XL Solo laptop, with every piece of software and hardware
> unmodified and exactly as provided by the mfr., with no additional
> hardware or software not provided by the mfr. It was purchased about 2
> years ago, with the latest/greatest release of '95 just before '98 came
> out.
I have the same model gateway (well, the equivalent, its only about a
year old) with all the fixins sitting at home on top of my stereo serving
up MP3s. I had exactly zero problems installing windows on it (98
and 2000). Everything was detected instantly. I did end up partitioning
the drive with partition magic and taking a few shortcuts with each
install.
Now dont get me wrong, I really hate windows. Hate. With a big "H".
But I do actually use windows for menial tasks--playing games and
displaying cool visualization plug ins for mp3 players in my livingroom.
Linux would certianly be overkill.
> My point is that it takes me almost 2 hours of intensely interactive
> time to reinstall the OS, and that I do not consider it easy and
> intuitive.
Even on my most "difficult" machine (pentium III, 3 IDE drives, two
ethernet cards, aureal vortex2 sound, nvidia TNT2 video, 2 USB devices,
etc.) windows98 is about an hour and a half install, but most of that
is waiting for stuff to be pulled off the CD. Its simply not all that
difficult.
> The steps were documented in detail for my own benefit
> because there are a number of "gotcha's" along the way, such as
> accidentally clicking "Close" instead of "Apply" after installing the
> video drivers -- the former will lock up the machine unrecoverably.
Never happened that way on my gateway.
> Installing OS's is not my profession, not something I do every day, so
> yes I do need a kind of "idiots-guide-to-setting-up-an-OS".
Then listen to people who have more experience than you.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 12:33:08 -0600
In article <38ccfde2$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks
> to
> its cacheing methods which are far superior to what idiots who run any
> Windows operating system experience.
No, others have pointed out that the way OS/2 uses memory (bottom up
instead of top down) may make the fact that the memory over 64 megs on a
430TX chipset MB IS NOT CACHED less of a problem, but it is STILL NOT
CACHED. No OS can overcome this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really *are* dense, aren't you. Windows and/or OS/2's "cacheing
methods" have *nothing* to do with this problem. It's a *chipset*
limitation.
You do know what a chipset is, don't you?
Dave
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed
Date: 13 Mar 2000 18:38:32 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 9 Mar 2000 18:11:39 GMT, Brian Langenberger wrote:
:>ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>*) strong NeoMagic graphics card support (support out-of-box with RedHat
:> in any case)
: That's good if you are prepared to forgive neomagic ...
For...?
Whatever they've done, besides make a mediocre mobile video card,
is beyond me. To avoid them and still use a ThinkPad would mean
using the i1500. I'd lose a PCMCIA slot in the process, but gain
a lot more video RAM (and hopefully 32bpp) from their ATI card.
I'd also lose my serial port, which would mean I'd have to upgrade
my Palm base to use USB support (assuming pilot-xfer supports USB).
The outer shell isn't all that spectacular either, but it should
suffice.
It's in interesting tradeoff, but the i1500 wasn't available for me
at the time. In general, I can forgive the two-button trackpads
(in favor of an external mouse), but large screen size and a
good keyboard layout are a must. Too many laptops I see try to
cram too many buttons in vertically in favor of more horizontal
space (usually for the trackpad) and I dislike that immensely
since laptop keyboards aren't easily swapped out.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
