Linux-Advocacy Digest #616, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (John Sanders)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Maury Markowitz)
Re: Thoughts and answers sought for Linux research article (John Sanders)
Re: my .02 on linux (John Sanders)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Ciaran)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: which OS is best? (Charles Kooy)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Thoughts and answers sought for Linux research article (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Drestin Black")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:10:54 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Subject says it all***************************
I'll bet you're the kind of guy that uses an application toaster. Am I
right? I'll bet the one you use is W95 or W98. Am I right again?
Those OSs are for 'point and clickers'. Just point at the icon of the
app you want, and (this is the fun part) 'click' on it. Pretty quick,
your app pops up! Am I right? Then you 'do your real work'. Am I
right?
Gosh. I envy you. Some day I'll buy a real OS. Then I'll be cool,
too. Am I right?
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maury Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:33:55 GMT
In <8ajkl1$hpr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jason Bowen wrote:
> 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?
Yes, it uses super-luminal processing to forward process the cached data
_before_ it gets into the cache. It also cooks lunch and can solve all np
problems in .5 cycles!
Maury
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts and answers sought for Linux research article
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:40:08 -0600
Tom Steinberg wrote:
> 1) What is interesting about Linux? Why do people talk about it at all?
It's UNIX on my Gateway 486DX! At first, anyway. Also on a P6 and an
embedded Moto system now. It supported all of my hardware. It gave me
the tools to write my own boot for the embedded system and compile the
OS for it.
> 2) Why has Linux achieved what it has?
I think because it was developed by a large number of people
communicating over USENET. May people contributed drivers for a lot of
diverse hardware in addition to the kernel developers. This allowed it
to run on more peoples hardware. I think BSD was limited in this way.
> 3) What has Linux really achieved?
Its penetration into the the server role has been amazing. The fact
that EDA businesses are beginning to take Linux seriously is
encouraging. Linux has the ability to really make the PC into a
workstation.
> 4) Where is Linux heading, realistically, in the short, medium and long
> terms?
Essentially anywhere. Just think that since anyone, anywhere can
modify Linux for custom applications and share a commonality with all
other Linux systems, its use is practically unlimited. I would guess
that it will really grow in Internet appliances and other communications
applications.
> 5) Is Linux sustainable as a project? Is it more or less sustainable than
> non-free projects?
You gonna stop all these people from having a good time?
> 6) Is Linux actually aiming at a level of desktop usability on par with
> Windowz? If so, when? If not, why not?
No. I think KDE/Gnome will burn out after a while. Windows is an
application toaster. Linux/UNIX is an operating system.
> 7) Is it more than just a typical manifestation of idealism which cannot
> threaten the products of the financial incentives of the proprietory
> software world? Could Linux become the CND of the modern age, if the
> Microsoft case ever ends?
Microsoft will have the market they have now. There is a lot of
proprietary software written for Linux.
> 8) Which is better Windows or Linux? ( jk )
Green.
> Tom Steinberg
--
John W. Sanders
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: my .02 on linux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:48:40 -0600
David Little wrote:
[deletia]
> probably just more conftorable with the windows UI, but isn't *almost*
> everyone? I believe that for linux to suceed on the desktop, it has to
> have a windows-like or easier UI, or else very few will bother to
> switch.
>
> Just my little .02
>
> Dave
Yes. I think you are absolutely correct. You are not required to use
Linux. Linux may or may not make it as a Windows replacement or succeed
on the desktop. But it doesn't matter. Not a bit.
Linux will succeed by doing its own thing.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
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 15:52:29 -0600
"Maury Markowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In <8ajkl1$hpr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jason Bowen wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes, it uses super-luminal processing to forward process the cached data
> _before_ it gets into the cache. It also cooks lunch and can solve all np
> problems in .5 cycles!
Didn't you know? OS/2 doesn't require hardware at all. It's more a state
of mind. It is the fastest system, as it doesn't exist in normaly space
and is, therefore, not bound by our limited laws of physics.
-Chad
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:06:50 -0800
In article <c96z4.6733$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad
Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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?
The little symbol for equal opportunity hate? Its kinda a square
divided into four and each quadrant is colored differently; red,
green blue yellow. It has these wavey black bits to the left.
Cheers,
Ciaran
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:05:25 -0500
> >> No, if something were functionally trivial you would neither
> >> need any references (bought or installed in the form of man
> >> or hlp files) and you wouldn't ever need to expend mental
> >> effort on using it.
> >
> >I disagree. A car is quite complex, but yet quite easy to drive.
>
> The AAA and my state registrar will surely get a hoot
> out of both of those clueless comments.
>
Not hard to learn at the very least.
I'm not talking about the idiots that drink or don't pay attention.
It's a testiment to how easy it is the drive the idiots they do so, if only
poorly.
>
> I usually just execute the associated application marked
> something like 'install' or 'setup'. The lack of an auto-
> mounter is less of an issue than you make it out to be.
> Most of the destops work around that at this point.
Oh. A good example is Gtkalog.
It's a Gnome based cd/disk catalog program.
It tries to index /mnt/cdrom if you point it there, but cannot mount it
automatically (and should the each program have to? It's the OSes job)
If fact a previous version even crashed since their wasn't a mounted cd
there.
So are you saying to me to catalog 10 cd's I have to be running a full
desktop environment, and mounting in that, catalog, and unmount in the DE
10 times, instead of under Windows quickly shuffling the 10 cd's through
without the nonsense?
I can't believe you think mounting and unmounting removable media to be
acceptable. Especially in this case.
Not everyone runs a desktop environment, and that is a damn poor place for
that functionally to exist.
That doesn't help those without, or in file managers.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy)
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 22:31:27 +0000
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
But its getting better. Still made by dodgy geezers, though.
>
> > > > 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.
Yep, way overdue for a change. Hopefully we'll have a replacement soon,
but I'm not holding my breath for an on-time delivery.
> > > > 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.
Dead, not so dead and pretty cool respectively. What about Linux? One
day it'll be truly ready for the desktop
> > > > 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!
Uhm, DOS never crashed? Uhhhhhh. No.
ck
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:08:10 -0500
> A car is also difficult to drive, under certain conditions.
> (Think snow, too high a speed, and that curve ahead -- whoopsie!
> Or an invisible patch of black ice. Or ramming something at
> 70 MPH in thick dense patchy fog. Try as the Legislature might,
> one can't repeal the laws of physics. :-) ) And then there
> are the right-of-way laws around e.g. pedestrian crosswalks
> and stop signs.
>
You got me.
I guess I'm saying learning how to work a car is obvious.
Not necessarily to drive (but that to do with traffic, conditions, etc, not
really WRT how to learn to operate the car itself which is nearly as easy as
possible.)
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:10:46 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:51:56 -0500, Jim Ross wrote:
>
> >I guess my experience with Corel and Netscape differ from yours.
> >I don't feel Linux is ready yet for the desktop.
>
> My experience is similar -- I had to learn to use it. Cut and paste *does*
> work differently in linux, but it still works. Now see if you can
> get that cut&paste to/from Netscape working (-;
>
> BTW, I haven't tried Corel. Still prefer Redhat.
>
> --
> Donovan
I got it working.
Even though I believe it supports the CTRL-C and CTRL-V commands, WRT to
Location Bar, those keys don't work, but middle botton does.
I guess that reflects how I feel NS sucks under Linux. Just one more
reason.
I have to say I feel Corel traded off stability for ease of use and
stability IS the selling point of Linux.
Corel 1.0 feels like a sad replica of Windows 9X now.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:11:45 -0500
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Ross wrote:
>
> > I guess I'm saying that for me the Netscape Location Bar doesn't accept
a
> > paste at all.
> > I commonly under Windows copy URLs from text files and often paste into
IE
> > Address Bar.
> > This is very convenience and hurts when not available in Linux.
> >
>
> It does for me. What version of Netscape are you using? Currently I'm
> using 4.7 but I'm sure it worked for 4.61 and I think 4.5.
>
> > Sorry that's what I meant. I want new GUI apps to all install into the
DE's
> > launcher, not the desktop/root window.
> > Many apps still don't.
> > Jim
>
> Ok, that sounds good.
>
> Gary
>
I was wrong.
Middle button does work.
Unfortunately CRTL-C and CRTL-V doesn't as one may expect.
Sorry about that,
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Thoughts and answers sought for Linux research article
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:36:29 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:40:08 -0600, John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tom Steinberg wrote:
[deletia]
>> 6) Is Linux actually aiming at a level of desktop usability on par with
>> Windowz? If so, when? If not, why not?
> No. I think KDE/Gnome will burn out after a while. Windows is an
>application toaster. Linux/UNIX is an operating system.
This is somewhat misleading. Windows tries to be an application
toaster. However, it is rather failure prone. This comes from
trying to be everyone's application toaster all at once on a
system never really meant for it. WinDOS is like the whole
kernel+init+bash+X bit but without the clean design. Thus, it's
easier to rip out everything in Unix/Linux that doesn't specifically
address your objective.
A Unix is more likely to be a genuine application toaster. MacOS
also has promise having been designed to be a 'toaster' from the
ground up. The same goes for Be.
Still, a general purpose GUI OS designed as such still isn't an
application toaster. It's still too general purpose. A PSX is a
genuine application toaster. A Windows or a MacOS is more like
a collection of application toasters, in the same hardware.
KDE or GNOME could merely be the bit that sits on to in your
custom application toaster, something small, efficient, cheap,
single purpose, and simple.
>
>> 7) Is it more than just a typical manifestation of idealism which cannot
>> threaten the products of the financial incentives of the proprietory
>> software world? Could Linux become the CND of the modern age, if the
>> Microsoft case ever ends?
> Microsoft will have the market they have now. There is a lot of
>proprietary software written for Linux.
Whatever financial incentive there is to sell software for money,
there is likely an even greater incentive to get it for free. This
is something far too often overlooked in such discussions.
A little enlightened self interest can go quite a long way. This is
not really a bad thing. Certain classes of software shouldn't be able
to make their owner's money any more. Those authors should be forced
to move onto things that are more bleeding edge or less able to be
replicated by a planet of grousing libertarians and tightwads.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:40:56 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ajenv$fit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >> And so is W2K btw. What the fucks up with stuff I stick in the recycle
> > bin
> >> coming back after deletion? And what about mysterious disappearing
> >> directories? I just recreated an MP3 tree for the 4th time and im sick
to
> >> death of doing it man.
> >>
>
> > ok, I dunno. Files coming back and files disappearing? Details and maybe
we
> > can help cause I've honestly never heard of such a thing.
>
> Sure...Heres the scenereo:
>
> W2K server on a year old tweaked out gateway laptop (128 megs ram, 233mmx,
8gig
> HD)..
>
> I used the stock FTP command line executable to pull about 4.5 gigs of
mp3s from
> another machine on my network, keeping directories intact. The tree was
> built under the root directory of the D partition of the boot drive.
>
> It worked fine at first, everything was playable, the software that I use
to
> build playlists was fine, etc. I needed to reboot the machine after
installing
> SQL (mp3 dj functionality, it IS a laptop after all...:)). Note that I
did NOT
> touch the mp3 directory tree or anything else with SQL in any way before I
> rebooted.
>
> I reboot, and the entire tree is gone. I looked at disk usage, and indeed
> they really actually werent there. So I put them back in exactly the same
way
> I did the first time and everything was hunky dory for a while.
>
> Then PART of the directory tree disappeared (everything under a certian
> subdirectory out of 22)---without a reboot. It just was gone. I stuck
the
> rest of the tree in the recycle bin and deleted them (the recycle bin is
set
> to not keep anything, delete it immediately) and redownloaded everything.
>
> When I was done, I noticed that I had two identical directory trees, one
where
> it belonged under the root directory of the D partition, and one under the
> root directory of the C partition. That was really weird. So I deleted
the
> one under the C partition and kept the one under the D partition to be
SQLized.
>
> This kind of thing continued for a while until I managed to get SQL
working,
> and then everything was fine.
>
> Off the top of my head, I should think that this is a straight up FS
problem.
>
> Thoughts?
accidently dragged and dropped the structure onto C:?
If you used command line FTP, perhaps you had the wrong local path...
What you describe is quite mysterious. I won't say it didn't happen - but, I
will add (and I can hear the sigh already): I've never seen a FS (any OS)
that just deleted directories/files without warning/reason.
Weird...
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:12:34 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:27:47 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >>
> >> Jim Ross wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Either way Linux doesn't provide a way for those AOL users to use AOL
in
> >> > Linux.
> >> > Score: Subtract many possible users. Extra bonus if you own a
> >winmodem.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I thought there was a way to use AOL with Linux. Can someone confirm
> >this?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > First example, I would like to be able to copy a URL in KEDIT and
paste
> >that
> >> > URL in
> >> > the Netscape Location Bar. Doesn't work. Well that says it.
> >>
> >> It works for me. I'm using using KDE 1.1.2
> >
> >I guess I'm saying that for me the Netscape Location Bar doesn't accept a
> >paste at all.
> >I commonly under Windows copy URLs from text files and often paste into
IE
> >Address Bar.
> >This is very convenience and hurts when not available in Linux.
>
> This feature works just fine and dandy on my freshly installed
> Redhat 6.2 actually...
>
> [deletia]
> >> Here we get into personal preferences. I would prefer all GUI apps to
> >install
> >> a program entry but leave my desktop alone.
> >
> >Sorry that's what I meant. I want new GUI apps to all install into the
DE's
> >launcher, not the desktop/root window.
> >Many apps still don't.
>
> Then take it up with the 'intern writing the installer'.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
> |||
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
I was wrong, middle button works.
Just not the CRTL-C, CRTL-V key bindings.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:15:24 -0500
>
> : As a result RPM's don't work with deb's,
>
> You've obviously never heard of "alien".
>
Alien is my experience typically doesn't work. Not always Aliens fault but
I wouldn't expect Alien to save Stampede from having less software
available.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:17:13 -0500
Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >If AbiWord didn't have so many incomplete dialogs.
>
> (Defending my claim)
>
> It looks really good, and that's apparently what matters in an app; not
how
> well it works. At least judging by someone making "the boxy appearance" a
> reason not to choose an app.
> --
> Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
> members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
> "New Windows feature: distributed.microsoft.com-- Fifty million machines
> generating random C code in an attempt to produce the next version of
Windows."
Sure.
Unfortunately if you compare even the Windows and Linux version, the Linux
version has issues.
Status fonts at the bottom are unreadable and font support stinks.
If fonts were fixed under Linux/XFree86, I feel many programs would benefit,
starting at AbiWord in Linux.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:43:26 -0500
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8aivvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8ah2mk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> My point is that it takes me almost 2 hours of intensely interactive
> time to reinstall the OS, and that I do not consider it easy and
> intuitive. The steps were documented in detail for my own benefit
> because there are a number of "gotcha's" along the way, such as
> accidentally clicking "Close" instead of "Apply" after installing the
> video drivers -- the former will lock up the machine unrecoverably.
>
I have never EVER heard of a scenario where that is true...
Please, reply with full details and let's see where the problem is.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:42:34 -0500
Norman:
I didn't see the first post and can't find it.
Can you repost to me what are the exact required steps to install windows on
your machine and describe your machine. I will see what I can see about
it...
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ajhgb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
