Linux-Advocacy Digest #694, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 11:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (root)
Re: Linux for Mac PPC 6100 and SE/30 (ken klavonic)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: gnome website sabotaged? ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
kde2.0 (mr faridros)
Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom ("Net Walker")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:29:58 +0100
> $319 doesn't sound appealing to a home user though.
> Emachines computers can be bought for that now I believe.
Yeah, but do you really WANT an E Machine. It's the Packard Bell of the
new millennium. Well, come to think of it, it would be perfect for W2K.
------------------------------
From: ken klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for Mac PPC 6100 and SE/30
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:17:20 -0500
Larry Niebur wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to get started with Linux on Macs, but I want to use old Mac boxes
> like SE/30's and a PPC 6100. Where do I start?
>
> I had heard of Yellow Dog, but when I went to their site I found out there
> Linux only runs on Macs with a PCI bus.
>
> Is Linux fast enough on an SE/30?
>
> I thought I could get by with internal small HD's and an external 2 GB.
> Will that work?
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide!
>
> Larry
Yep, a PCI-based PowerMac would be required for Yellow Dog and LinuxPPC
as well. There is a variant for the older 68K-based Macs, but I'd
suggest checking out NetBSD for the SE/30. I've been running NetBSD on
an old Quadra 650, and it's great - got it running Apache, Bind, etc. -
it's never been a more stable machine... :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:44:14 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:15:46 -0600...
...and Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Are you trying to tell me that users do not need to be trained to use
> Linux?
> > > And are you claiming that such training costs less than Windows?
> >
> > Why would it cost more? If the user was already indoctrinated in any one
> > system then all bets are off.
>
> So, teaching a user to use TeX is much easier than teaching them to use
> Word, right?
Yes, if anything you want them to do with their document preparation
system is nontrivial. Creating tables of contents, references,
floating figures, etc. is much easier done with LaTeX than with the
crutches Word provides.
Of course LaTeX isn't meant to make flyers with, but then, Word isn't
either.
I taught myself LaTeX pretty much without using any documentation,
teaching myself Emacs (which I use as a TeX shell) at the same time. I
used Emacs in an entirely pointy-clicky way, having memorised none of
its key combinations, and I called TeX only through Emacs' pull-down
menu. Everything was easy. The hardest thing was cobbling up the
document preambles.
Good distributions should provide their users with a set of standard
preambles so they won't have got to retype them from a book like me.
mawa
--
Life: it's been hit or miss since I lost the manual.
-- Michael Bonnell
------------------------------
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: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:36:53 GMT
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:56:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:52:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
>>>wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>Ed Letourneau is simply a lunatic/bigot who is trying to make OS/2
>>>>users appear to be extremely unpleasant in an effort to drive people
>>>>away from OS/2.
>>
>>>That alone shows he's a nut. He doesn't need to drive anyone away from OS/2
>>>-- IBM did that without his help.
>>
>>>From a former OS/2 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1 user -- never used Warp.
>>
>>So george, what is your abnormality -- besides an obvious inability
>>to think clearly -- or will we have to suffer thought endless lines of drivel
>>until it becomes apparent?
>If it's true that you're trying to drive users away from OS/2 by showing that
>you're a lunatic/bigot, then you're indeed a nut.
The only thing glatt's statements are is an demonstration of his dysfunctional
brain in action.
glatt is creature who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him or who doesn't
like him is a bigot because he is a homo (and he never stops telling us that
his is). He also comes equipped with an obnoxious personality that no one
likes, or could like no matter what else he is, thereby collecting people who
don't like him, and who therefore are bigots. And somehow his diseased brain
has told him that anyone here who, in his twisted thinking qualifies as a
bigot, must be the reason why OS2 failed and they are here to finish OS2 off.
>If you have some specific input that makes you think that I have an
>inability to think clearly, please share it.
You jumped in and followed the dysfunction brain cells that appeared to escape
from glatt, so I assumed you had abnormalities like glatt.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:09:21 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:36:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
<snip>
>>If you have some specific input that makes you think that I have an
>>inability to think clearly, please share it.
>
>You jumped in and followed the dysfunction brain cells that appeared to
>escape from glatt, so I assumed you had abnormalities like glatt.
Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill
off OS/2 is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 19 Mar 2000 15:15:12 GMT
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: It was the Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:58:18 GMT...
: ...and Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [capitalism yada yada]
: > I wonder if that sound I hear is Ms. Rand doing back flips in her grave...
: References to Ayn Rand.
: Instant-O-Loss-O-Credibility.
Not on my side of the Rio Grande ;-)
John
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:17:17 -0500
Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b2jtm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, hi "doc"!
Hi there "Norman!" :-)
> My, five different posts responding to mine over a
> period of two hours (9:30 AM - 11:30 AM) on a Saturday morning. I am
> flattered.
Glad to flatter you.
> To save you time, I'll respond all at once and try to make it somewhat
> brief.
> Everything I said is accurate and stands as is.
There were a number of problems with your procedure. Many of which I noted
specifically and more Roger noted.
> I never claimed my
> procedure was absolutely optimum but neither you nor anyone else has
> shown (nor can show) how, for this particular machine (Gateway Solo
> 2300XL) and its Windows 95 software (version 4.00.950 B), as provided >by
> the manufacturer, the installation can be made significantly shorter
> overall
First of all, at least half of your procedure is _not_ for installing an OS.
There were a number of questions I asked you that I hope you answered below,
such as "Why no Gateway Rescue Disks?"
If you'd like, I'd even offer to talk you through this procedure on the
phone. I'm sure we can shorten it up.
> It is not a Gateway publication. As I have said more than once, it was
> written by me for my own use, guided by several Gateway technicians over
> a period of time.
Did you ever install Windows on your machine with less than that entire
procedure?
If yes, then it's not all necessary for an install is it?
> >The general procedure (details differ slightly depending on the Windows
> >version . . . for instance, Win2K requires 4 boot floppies) on an empty
> >machine, or one in which you are reinstalling Windows over a previous
> >installation is:
> This is completely incorrect for Windows 95 on the machine I described.
What is incorrect about it?
Want me to call you and I'll walk you through it?
> But anyway let me make a general comment on steps 6 and 7:
> >6. Hit Enter/Click okay a bunch of times when Windows tells you to.
> >7. Make a cup of coffee. Keep hitting enter/clicking okay
> "Hit Enter/Click okay a bunch of times"... "Keep hitting enter/clicking
> okay"... If this is so simple why isn't it automated?
Are you making an argument here that clicking okay isn't simple?
>Why do you have
> to babysit the machine? With Linux instead of "Make a cup of coffee.
> Keep hitting enter/clicking okay" it would be "Get some other work done
> while you wait".
With Linux, you get some other work done while you wait for the packages to
install after you select them. It's not that you do no selecting before
that point.
Likewise with Windows, you have an extended period where you wait for the OS
to install after you've clicked okay a bunch of times.
Apparently you've installed both and you know this.
> BTW why does Win2K require 4(!) boot floppies?
Because it loads 5.6 MB from the floppies before it accesses the CD-ROM if
you don't boot from the CD-ROM.
> >Now, that may not install every driver you need...
> Well, that is probably the biggest part of my procedure.
> >By the way, most OEMs provide restore disks.
> Which is fine if you haven't changed the original hardware
> configuration.
Ah . . . so this isn't a typical installation, is it? You're using a lot of
newer hardware than the OS. So, yes, at some point you're going to have to
install drivers for the newer hardware. Why don't you just stick in their
disks and let them either autoload or take the two seconds it takes to point
device manager to the driver?
You must not have the driver disks in the original condition or something
else is odd, there.
If you're not using the Gateway RDs, why are you listing something other
than the Win95 RD for the initial boot?
> But anyway Gateway doesn't provide one for this machine.
That could be possible. I can't recall the last time I ran across a machine
that came with an OS (and it's not that easy to buy a naked one unless you
go to a very small manufacturer) and not a RD.
> >I seriously thought it was written as a joke. It sounds like something I
> >would write if I was trying to be humorous through mockery and
exaggeration.
> Sorry to disappoint you, but it is the precise procedure that I use to
> reinstall the OS on this machine.
I don't know if I was disappointed . . . at this point, I believe that is
the procedure you use to reinstall the OS on your machine, but I look at it
as I would if you used my procedure to get to Boston.
> As I said before and say again it
> does have an occasional redundancy that you and your friend "Roger" seem
> to love nitpicking to death.
Well, I just like accurate claims. The principal point here is that this is
_not_ a necessary or usual way to install Windows, just like my procedure
was _not_ a necessary or usual way to get to Boston.
I didn't say you _couldn't_ do it that way, necessarily.
> >> Version 1.4
> >> Disk 1 or 1
> >What is Version 1.4 and Disk 1 or 1?
> Sorry, a typo. I meant Disk 1 of 1. This is just part of the label
> printed on the diskette.
Version 1.4 of what? All you need here is the Win95 boot disk to get
started.
> > > NOTE: DUE TO BUGS IN MICROSOFT FDISK, BADLY >CORRUPTED DISKS CANNOT
BE
> >> PARTITIONED. IN THAT CASE INSTALL LINUX TEMPORARILY >UP TO FDISK,
> >In that case install Linux???? This is where I began to think that this
was
> >a joke.
> Yes, it is exactly what I mean: in that case install Linux. Linux fdisk
> will recover corrupted disks whereas MS FDISK will not.
Yeah, but I thought you said that Gateway told you this? And I thought you
said this was a necessary procedure to install Windows? Again, if you are
reinstalling from scratch, you don't _need_ to recover a corrupted
disk--you're going to reformat.
> >What is telling you to install Linux? Gateway's literature? lol
> Gateway did not tell me this.
Oh. So this isn't just Gateway instructions then. It's also stuff you made
up.
> I discovered this on my own after a
> similar experience with eMachines (Windows 98), where the tech actually
> told me (because of the MS FDISK bugs) that my corrupted disk had to be
> replaced.
You can't blame MS for an ignorant help desk employee.
> And without Linux or possibly some third-party software that
> I do not own, he was right.
No, he wasn't. What is corruption, anyway?
> >So your machine came with Linux, too?
> No. I purchased it separately.
Well, that makes sense. I was wondering, assuming that the Gateway tech
told you to install Linux at this point, if your machine came with Linux,
too.
> >Uh, how are "fdisk bugs" installing Windows? What does it have to do
with
> >installing Windows?
> It has everything to do with installing Windows from scratch. Unless
> you consider Windows just an app on top of DOS.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with installing Windows from scratch. Do
you know how many machines I have installed Windows on from scratch that
needed no concern with "fdisk bugs?"
It seems to me that isn't a necessary part of installing Windows.
> >> Says:
> >> System will now restart
> >> Insert DOS system diskette in drive A:
> >> Press any key when ready...
> >Insert DOS system diskette??? That's another reason I thought this was a
> >joke. Now you're running Win95, Linux and DOS?
> This is exactly what FDISK displays on the screen. Have you ever used it?
Probably 1500 times or so. I never noticed "Insert DOS System Diskette." I
suppose it's possible that it says that and I never really noticed it, but
on the other hand, I don't think so. I'll look the next time I do a Win95
install, though.
> [big set of commentary, opinions, and speculations omitted, most of it
> showing you have not experienced installing the OS on this machine.
On _that_ machine, no. And comments about what is and isn't _installing an
OS_ are neither speculative nor opinions. But all that stuff that was
omitted is probably the stuff you don't need to install an OS.
> This is getting boring and I don't have time to explain each one - in
> some cases a 2nd time.
Imagine reading your inflated procedure.
> If something *particularly* interests you as to
> "why", please ask again and I may explain it.]
Everything interested me in the first place. Not answering it doesn't help
build your case.
> >I thought you claimed that these were Gateway's instructions? Are these
> >published by Gateway somewhere? Do you have the name of someone at
Gateway
> >who specified all these steps?
> As I explained earlier, more than once, this is the procedure I
> documented while working with Gateway support over the phone on several
> occasions. If you would like I can provide the Gateway event numbers as
> well as the first names and badge numbers of the support techs I worked
> with.
The main thing I wanted to do was talk to the guy who recommended that you
install Linux. Obviously, I can't do that now.
> >>Windows has enough mysterious flaky
> >>problems as it is, so I want to eliminate as many unknowns as possible.
> >Sounds like a control issue. They have doctors for that.
> Sounds like common sense to me. Your ad hominem remarks are amusing
> though.
Thanks. But it is true that being obsessed with all sorts of control issues
isn't part of the procedure of installing an OS per se. Which is what you
were implying at first.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: gnome website sabotaged?
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:16:02 GMT
What's a vagina?
Please explain?
Steve
On 19 Mar 2000 02:54:08 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net writes:
>
>> It's obvious...They have finally seen the light :)
>> Steve
>
>Steve, your name is both Heather and Steve? Don't tell me you have
>both a penis and a vagina.
>
>
>- Donn
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:28:26 -0500
Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b2k95$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> E.g. power management tailoring to my liking / there is no easy way to
> tell without source code.
> Look, if Windows seems "more flaky" than usual I'm not going to waste
> hours with statistical charts on crash frequencies to try to correlate
> them with my BIOS settings. Just putting EVERYTHING back to its
> original state and starting over saves me a lot of time.
That's not part of installing an OS per se, though, and you had implied that
it was. You can do it, but you don't have to.
It's not just that I'm arguing for Windows. If someone said something
similar with respect to Linux I would say the same thing.
> A corrupted boot sector can
> in principle cause a number of strange behaviors. That's how boot
> sector viruses work.
That's very true, but on the other hand, it isn't part of an OS install per
se. If you are having strange behaviors that you think might be due to a
boot sector problem, then that falls under troubleshooting--not OS
installation.
If you choose to take the precaution just to be extra-safe, that's not part
of an OS installation per se, either. There's lots of precautions you could
take when installing any OS--but those aren't necessary, and they aren't
part of an OS install.
> Since no source code is provided there is no way
> to identify what the problems are and what causes them. When some
> Windows app starts to behave strangely or no longer runs even after
> reinstalling it, or Windows crashes more frequently than usual, etc.
> just putting EVERYTHING back to its original state and starting over
> from scratch saves me time and guarantees a predictable result (for a
> while anyway). That is just plain common sense in the MS world.
If you start having serious problems and don't want to troubleshoot,
reinstalling is an option, sure.
> [Remaining nitpicking bypassed; I'm getting bored. My procedure works
> just fine, thank you.]
LOL
Again, I don't think we were arguing that you _couldn't_ install an OS with
the procedure you described, although there were a couple things that
sounded bizarre, but our problem was that you had implied that this was a
necessary, usual procedure to install Windows. It isn't.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr faridros)
Subject: kde2.0
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:35:23 GMT
what are youer whilist for kde 3.0 ?
when will kde2.0 be realesed?
EVRYTHING IS JUST A SATE OF MIND
------------------------------
From: "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:04:27 GMT
> > I just got a couple of distributions (Corel & Caldera) from
> > CheapBytes. Thought I'd check them for viruses just in case something
> > could've gotten on while the cdrom's were being created.
> > The machine I used was running McAfee on NT4.0. When I tried to scan
> > the disk, it worked for awhile, then EVERYTHING crashed and I got a
> > blue screen that said something about "starting memory dump"?! Had to
> > reboot the computer.
> > Was this something to do with the different Linux file system on the
> > disk, or does it sound like a problem? I'm almost nervous trying to
> > install it now.
>
> Don't CD-ROM's use the ISO 9660 filesystem?
I have never had problems with any Linux CD and I am using it since
Slackware 1.0 days. A BSOD at NT has got nothing to be with Linux, it is
just a NT feature :-)
Net Walker.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
