Linux-Advocacy Digest #615, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 16:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Koan Kid)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Kar-Han Tan)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: which OS is best? ("M Merced")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: which OS is best? (Bob Lyday)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (John Sanders)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Koan Kid <[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 19:35:22 GMT
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly:
> "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>> >
>> > You'd have to read Bob's hate filled diatribes on non-OS/2 using people to
>> > answer that question.
>>
>> He doesn't just limit it to non-OS/2 using people. He distributes his hate
>> equally to all factions. That's his way of demonstrating that he's not a
>> bigot.
> Equal-opportunity hate. Wonder what the little symbol is for that?
Isn't it kind of a twisted cross-looking thing? In black, on a red
background, IIRC.
KK
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:36:40 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy MJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:_v9z4.453$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Gee, if I extract the source from a GNU-project tarball and do
>> "./configure ; make install" under Win 98, it doesn't work.
>
> Like hell it doesn't. With Cygwin32 tools installed, I can do exactly that.
> Unless you assume an out-of-the-box installation, in which case you'll have
> to revisit some of your other conclusions.
Requiring the Cygwin runtime plus the GNU toolsuite is a level portability
which is comparible to having to install an X server & libraries under MacOS
X. I would not claim that xmille just compiles and works under the MacOS, any
more than your average Win98 box can build emacs without some significant
underlying pieces being installed first.
In other words, there is a difference between solvable problems like the
above, which do not represent the same level of portability that having
"./configure ; make install" work with the out-of-box configuration.
>> And source code which does syscall(SYS_chmod, ....) happens to compile and
>> work using the existing Mach kernel in MOSXS that it does everywhere else,
>> such as with the Linux kernel (which #defines the above to be __NR_chmod
>> in /usr/include/syscall-list.h). Anyone who cares can compare and contrast
>> the list of system calls provided by the two kernels and figure out that
>> the exported API's are practically identical.
>
> It would be disingenuous to justify your new definition of "portability" on
> the basis of system call compatibility, so don't do that.
In the strictest sense, the only significant portability differences between
the Linux kernel and the Mach kernel is with drivers and LKMs.
I agree that this is not very useful, which is why I tried to consider
portability in a broader and more meaningful scope.
> You were far more generous with your definition, for trivial example, when
> comparing Adobe Framemaker+SGML availability.
I thought I was simply being fair to both sides, not "generous"....
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:52:00 -0600
"Koan Kid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ajftq$5h3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly:
> > Equal-opportunity hate. Wonder what the little symbol is for that?
>
> Isn't it kind of a twisted cross-looking thing? In black, on a red
> background, IIRC.
Well, see, they aren't equal opportunity, though. They're biggoted biggots.
They didn't hate arian people with blonde hair.
Any other suggestions?
-Chad
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:59:55 -0600
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 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'.
why should they bother ?
> >> 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.
but that's how Apple is creating demand for Quicktime (and since they own
Quicktime, create demand for their services and products). Wonder why the
Episode I trailer is only available in Quicktime ?
so, yeah, you can create your own digital media architecture and movie
player, but in the mean time if you want to view the cool trailers, you
need to get Quicktime, and for that you need Apple.
> 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.
are you saying they are deliberately restricting Quicktime to mac and
windows, so the free unixen look like server-only or command-line-only
operating systems?
> >> >> 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.
see, that's why RMS is the 'Free Software' guy, and not the 'Open Source'
guy.
> 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.
can't say anything about this since I haven't looked at the Darwin source,
but I can imagine it is in their interest to actually have an open core so
driver developers have full access to the information they need.
> >> 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.
when and where did they claim to have written all the code they are
opening ?
if you get a copy of MacOS X Server, you'll see that more than
half of the very thin installation manual is copyright notices for the
software they are reusing, stating all the sources.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 13 Mar 2000 15:02:19 -0500
In article <8aj9to$fit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You have no idea what im talking about, or what youre talking about.
>[...] I doubt youd be happy with a freakin toaster.
Everything I have posted is accurate and factual. Nobody has offered
any evidence to the contrary. The procedure I posted to install Windows
95 *on this machine* is the actual procedure that is *required*, and it
cannot be simplified other than nitpicking a redundant step here and
there. That is a fact. Sorry to disappoint you. Why does it bother
you so much?
I am not asking for advice, since I already know how to install the OS,
and know that the procedure cannot be simplified with the hardware and
software I have, despite what you say. I am just presenting my
observations and experiences.
>> Even installing them separately gets Windows confused about where the
>> drivers are, which you can see with a bunch of error messages that must
>> be ignored and the correct driver location provided multiple times.
>
>Because you dont know what youre doing. Stop pretending that you do.
No, it's because of a well-known bug in Windows 95 that "forgets"
where the drivers are. You can see it in the procedure I documented.
>You should have done more thinking and more research before you bought
>the machine in the firstplace.
I see. So now it's the machine that has the problem, and not the MS
software provided with it. At the time I bought it was a top of the
line laptop from Gateway, a respected manufacturer, and it had excellent
reviews. Not that I should trust reviewers... But I still think the
hardware is fundamentally sound.
>Your current situation is due completely to your own ignorance.
My current situation is fine, thank you. Yes, I have to take a couple
hours every few months to refresh the slow degradation ("OS rot") of
Windows (or recover from the occasional catastrophic failure), and I
find the procedure and waste of time annoying. My purpose here is to
share that experience. I think I have the procedure down to a science,
compared to other people who spend entire evenings in panic and
trial-and-error trying to reinstall Windows when it trashes their disk.
>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.
I am happy for you. But that is not the case with my machine and
Windows 95. And that is what I am describing here.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: "M Merced" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:09:02 GMT
Enterprise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> An old favorite of mine was a Tandy computer which had DOS 3.3 and
> Deskmate(A graphical interface which came with its own set of integrated
> applications and accessories). It was very easy to use, almost
> impervious to crashing, and nearly fool proof. Since key parts of
> Deskmate and DOS were built into the ROM of this computer, it was super
> fast, booting into its GUI in under ten seconds! It came with a simple
> Word processor and spell checker, a spreadsheet program, a database
> program, a game(hangman), a program that would allow you to dial
> directly into other computers, a draw program, an address book, a sound
> recording program and a fairly sophisticated music editing program. The
> Tandy had a fairly impressive sound system back in its day. Does anyone
> here remember what I am talking about? I have information on this
I remember that. had the 1000HX way back. Had that enhanced CGA graphics
which was basically a 16 color version of it.
The sound wasn't as beepy as the PC speaker at that time. Boy, that brings
back memories.
> computer on my website along with a DeskMate download that will work
> with any PC compatible computer. If your interested, go to
> http://users.nac.net/enterprise
>
> Duallaser wrote:
> >
> > I feel like causing a big stink, so here we go:
> > Which OS is best?
> >
> > Windows 9x? windows is buggy, windows takes too long to load, lots of
> > windows apps are junk, windows is big...
> > MAC? Mac OS is slow, (maybe less) buggy, takes long to load, has all
> > sorts of problems running old 680x0 software, I've never checked but I'm
> > sure its just as big as Windoze...
> > Linux? linux is not buggy, linux does not have junk applications written
> > in Visual Basic that are really slow, but linux is also huge (hundreds
> > of MB for avg install) and more complicated...
> >
> > so which is best?
> > DOS!
> > -DOS will run on virtually any PC with no configuring
> > -full install of MS-DOS 6.22 is less than 7mb (thats full install)
> > -no matter how many times you type DIR or CHKDSK or DEFRAG or any other
> > of the multitude of utilities, DOS WILL NOT LOCK or cause any kind of
> > faults or anything
> > -DOS boots in a few seconds
> > -DOS always does what you tell it to
> > -no fiddling around with a mouse is required
> > -DOS does not disturb other programs on your computer
> > -if you absolutely must use some graphical apps (like a web browser) you
> > can run Windows 3.11 for workgroups which is faster and smaller than
> > '95- then when you are done you can go right back to DOS with no
> > problems
> > -DOS does not constantly interrupt and harrass applications and slow
> > them down
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:16:37 GMT
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is true, but it is limited to the value of the chip cache. OS2 does over
come it in the sense that it does keep track of files and other things, which
do increase the overall performance levels to something beyond what we see
from Winwhatever.
>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 fellows are talking past each other.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[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 20:37:49 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:59:55 -0600, Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 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'.
>
>why should they bother ?
It's good engineering practice. It keeps functionally
orthogonal bits of the 'device' from interfering with
each other as much as possible. It makes the design
more debuggable, more maintainable and more extensible.
I would actually be somewhat surprised if their code
weren't already nearly sufficiently abstracted anways.
If they can't just yank away the computational bulk from
their system then they've been indulging in some rather
sloppy engineering.
>
>
>> >> 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.
>
>but that's how Apple is creating demand for Quicktime (and since they own
>Quicktime, create demand for their services and products). Wonder why the
>Episode I trailer is only available in Quicktime ?
This is akin to having a chapter from the latest King novel
in Word format. It really doesn't add much to the experience
of consuming the media but, it does help create artificial
demand for their viewers and media generation products.
>
>so, yeah, you can create your own digital media architecture and movie
>player, but in the mean time if you want to view the cool trailers, you
>need to get Quicktime, and for that you need Apple.
This is a completely artificial constraint.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>are you saying they are deliberately restricting Quicktime to mac and
>windows, so the free unixen look like server-only or command-line-only
>operating systems?
They are certainly deliberatly restricting it.
That much is indisputable. Whether or not it's a matter of
intent or simply neglect doesn't matter. Either condition
demonstrates why locking yourselves into 'owned' data
interchange facilities a really BAD idea.
>
>
>> >> >> 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.
>
>see, that's why RMS is the 'Free Software' guy, and not the 'Open Source'
>guy.
>
>> 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.
>
>can't say anything about this since I haven't looked at the Darwin source,
>but I can imagine it is in their interest to actually have an open core so
>driver developers have full access to the information they need.
Actually, there's very little information that they need
to expose to hardware vendors to support driver development.
Apple is geared towards supporting binary device drivers
and they don't support multiple hardware platforms.
>
>
>> >> 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.
>
>
>when and where did they claim to have written all the code they are
>opening ?
When they claimed they were 'opening' Darwin and when they
slapped their own copyright on it and a licence that makes
all derivative works propery of Apple and allows Apple to
revoke end user licences.
>
>if you get a copy of MacOS X Server, you'll see that more than
>half of the very thin installation manual is copyright notices for the
>software they are reusing, stating all the sources.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: 13 Mar 2000 20:44:29 GMT
>
>They will spend hours configuring the shit Linux, but won't spend one
>second earning enough money to buy a real hardware system...
>
>386/20mhz......
>
>Typical LinoNut cheapshit hardware.......
>
Knowing that the lowest-end of currently available 80x86-based machines sells
for about 300USD (not counting internet-trap rebate schemes), and assuming a
wage of ten dollars an hour, you'd have to spend thirty hours configuring that
386 to have wasted enough time to afford a new machine with. I doubt I've
spent 30 hours configuring Linux over the years. Now, the 10 hours I spent
rebuilding a machine with a flaky hard disc, that's another story.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:47:01 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
M Merced wrote:
>
>
> > Duallaser wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel like causing a big stink, so here we go:
> > > Which OS is best?
> > >
> > > Windows 9x? windows is buggy, windows takes too long to load, lots of
> > > windows apps are junk, windows is big...
Don't forget unstable and made by criminals.
> > > MAC? Mac OS is slow, (maybe less) buggy, takes long to load, has all
> > > sorts of problems running old 680x0 software, I've never checked but I'm
> > > sure its just as big as Windoze...
Don't forget no protected memory and no preemptive multitasking.
> > > Linux? linux is not buggy, linux does not have junk applications written
> > > in Visual Basic that are really slow, but linux is also huge (hundreds
> > > of MB for avg install) and more complicated...
How about Amiga, OS/2 or BeOS? They are all really great.
> > >
> > > so which is best?
> > > DOS!
> > > -DOS will run on virtually any PC with no configuring
> > > -full install of MS-DOS 6.22 is less than 7mb (thats full install)
> > > -no matter how many times you type DIR or CHKDSK or DEFRAG or any other
> > > of the multitude of utilities, DOS WILL NOT LOCK or cause any kind of
> > > faults or anything
> > > -DOS boots in a few seconds
> > > -DOS always does what you tell it to
> > > -no fiddling around with a mouse is required
> > > -DOS does not disturb other programs on your computer
> > > -if you absolutely must use some graphical apps (like a web browser) you
> > > can run Windows 3.11 for workgroups which is faster and smaller than
> > > '95- then when you are done you can go right back to DOS with no
> > > problems
> > > -DOS does not constantly interrupt and harrass applications and slow
> > > them down
I agree, in a way, but saying that DOS is great is like saying a
guy on crutches is a great athlete cuz he never falls down. DOS
never crashes though, that's for sure. Windows was a downgrade!
--
Bob
'
\ , /
' ,___/_\___, '
\ /e.e\ /
-= > \_/ < =-
/_\___/_\
. ` \ / ` .
/ ` \
.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:47:31 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Typical LinoNut cheapshit hardware.......
>
> They will spend hours configuring the shit Linux, but won't spend one
> second earning enough money to buy a real hardware system...
>
> Typical left wing Linux crap.....
>
You practicing to be a 5 year old?
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
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 20:56:01 GMT
In article <38cd408e$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>This is true, but it is limited to the value of the chip cache. OS2 does over
>come it in the sense that it does keep track of files and other things, which
>do increase the overall performance levels to something beyond what we see
>from Winwhatever.
You really are dense, just like Boob. Prove what you are saying with real
knowledge, not some bs statement without proof. The whole issue at hand
was the cacheable limit of the 430TX chipset, Boob showed his complete
ignorance on the issue. We are speaking of the amount of memory that the
CPU cache(L1, L2, L3) can address. You act as if OS/2 can address
uncached memory faster than anything else. Tell me how it does that? Does
it speed up chip access times? Does it circumvent the laws of physics?
>
>
>>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 fellows are talking past each other.
>
>
>_____________
>Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:10:08 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
>In article <38ccfde2$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 03/12/2000 at 08:35 PM,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>>The 430TX chipset only caches 64Mb of ram.
>>As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks to
>>its cacheing methods
>So tell us Bob,
>how does OS/2 make the chipset cache more memory than it is designed to
>in hardware?
I suspect Boob Germer believes that the 430TX chipset caches more than
64Mb of RAM with the help of the USB bus. After all, it has some extra
pins since it doesn't supply power to peripherals, according to Boob.
And Boob is the dummy who thinks that he's actually fooling anyone
with his lies about how he allegedly sets up and maintains computers
for "half of New Jersey, USA". He does no such thing. He merely lies
about doing so
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed
Date: 14 Mar 2000 05:11:55 GMT
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:46:38 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I am not a Dell fan, Dell is supposed to be introducing laptops
> with Linux installed.
My mother's laptop is a Dell Latitude CPi and runs Linux nicely with
two 'issues':
1) The CDROM drive has to be set as the first boot device or Linux
won't detect it.
2) You need a 2.3 kernel to use the in-built sound. This isn't two bad
since Linus has said the next '2.3' kernel will in fact be the
beginning of the 2.4-pre kernels.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
