Linux-Advocacy Digest #695, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 13:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(ZnU)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Chris Lee)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Lance Togar")
Re: Giving up on NT (Dave)
Kernel 2.4 ("Net Walker")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Coherency ("Net Walker")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Rob Hughes)
Re: Kernel 2.4 (Matt Gaia)
Re: Make linux primary OS at work? (Gary Hallock)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (John Sheehy)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Bob Hauck)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Kernel 2.4 ("Net Walker")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:35:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2000 15:26:23 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In comp.sys.next.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 17 Mar 2000 14:02:27 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>In comp.sys.next.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> ...and Sorenson has exclusively licenced them to apple.
> >>>> As far as cinepak goes, cinepak is quite available and
> >>>> has been for some time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So quit whining, quit bitching, quit suggesting that your
> >>>rights are somehow being trampled because you're unable to
> >>>access a *luxury* item, and write some damn code!
> >
> >> What is this assinine fixation you have with code. This isn't
> >> a 'code' issue. It's a PATENT and TRADE SECRET issue. That's
> >> why you can't point out an example of someone else that has
> >> produced a sorenson codec implementation and why some 3rd party
> >> willing to take my money hasn't obliged my interest.
> >
> >Because they haven't tried, because the coded already exists
> >on the major platforms, and there isn't enough paying demand on
> >other platforms?
>
> The other platforms don't PAY to begin with. So why should
> other platforms (not in Bill's pocket) have to pay for a
> basic player as well?
Because those other platforms has insignificant marketshare and
QuickTime would cost a considerable amount to port.
> Although, there's enough 'demand' for the RealPlayer to be
> included in Be 5.0 and enough for there to be a G2 player
> for Linux.
RealPlayer is a media player. QuickTime is an entire media architecture.
It wouldn't be quite as easy to port, obviously.
> Hopefully, Apple will feel the sting from future consumer
> pressure and get the market fate they deserve.
Consumer pressure? From the 1% of the market that uses something other
than Mac OS or Windows?
> >Besides, what makes you think they *have* to?
>
> Simple consumerism. That's what seperates us from some Stalinesque
> state where you only get to see nifty product in museums. That's
> the whole point of capitalism.
You don't seem to understand capitalism very well. If Apple thought
there would be a suitable return on investment (in whatever form),
QuickTime would be ported to non-mainstream OSes. Or do you think it's a
Big Conspiracy?
> >
> >>>
> >>>Again, if open-source development is as powerful as some claim,
> >>>why hasn't a clean-room version of the Sorenson codec been written?
> >
> >> Add one assinine assertion to another...
> >
> >> Do you have any idea what it would take to reverse engineer
> >> a video encoding scheme. Unless you do, you have no business
> >> whining that such a feat should have been achieved already.
> >
> >Okay, then write a better codec.
> >
> >>>
> >>>In the meantime, go watch Willy Wonka and see which of the
> >>>characters you most resemble.
> >
> >> Go fuck yourself, corporate bootlicker.
> >
> >"Oi Want An Oompa-Loompa *NOW*"
>
> Just because you choose to be a serf, or dellude yourself into
> thinking you happen to be with the 'in crowd' for the moment
> doesn't mean the rest of us should be so passive.
You're asking Apple to do things that aren't in its best interest (or
the best interest of its customers; I can think of many things I'd
rather see do than Apple blow a few million dollars on a Linux port of
QuickTime or shoot itself in the foot by creating even more competition
for a product that already has to deal with Windows Media Player and
RealPlayer) simply because the current state of affairs inconveniences
you. Again, what does Apple owe you?
> I bet you support the greater-than-draft-age legal drinking age now
> as well, since that injustice no longer effects you.
If alcohol hadn't been around for so long it would probably be entirely
illegal.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 19 Mar 2000 16:35:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>On 17 Mar 2000 07:37:09 +0300, Victor Wagner wrote:
>
>>Changing only a kernel doesn't abolish you from GNU license. Especially,
>
>THis was my point exactly.
>
>>BSD vs Linux is not licensing issue, it is architecture and development
>>model issue. BSD is basicaly cathedral, while Linux is bazaar.
>
>I'd agree. This is indeed the main difference.
>
>>Too many new features which can break things,
>
>Possibly. There would appear to be a trade off in speed / features for
>robust code. The Linux code is pretty stable, but at least OpenBSD kills
>it in the security stakes, because there is a focus on refining the code
>they've already got, rather than churning out more.
Don't be too sure about claiming this. Remember RedHat will be including
tripwire with it's dist pretty soon and the other dists will follow, and
the RedHat 6.2 beta defaults with a lot of things turned off that used to be
turned on in the older RedHat 5.0-6.0 dists.
------------------------------
From: "Lance Togar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:57:45 GMT
"Jason S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Lance Togar posted the following first-level quoted material to
comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >ROFLOL!!! I hope this "pearl of wisdom" makes the CSMA dunce of the month
> >award. I'm going to leave all the cross-posting intact. For those who
don't
> >know, Joe's a rabid Mac user who learned about Linux via macaddict and
still
> >hasn't gotten it running - mostly because he's confused about the lack of
a
> >smiling penguin on the startup screen.
>
> How little you know, Prozac boy! Any PowerPC Linux setup will have
> a penguin (it looks like it is smiling) on the startup screen, since
> all PowerPC Linux setups use the framebuffer device! (The old version
> had the penguin holding a beer, but the PC forces -- no, not PeeCee:
> politically correct -- changed that). You can even get it on your PeeCee
> Linux, especially if you have an ATI or Matrox card (it's pretty useless
> with other cards, IMO). You get nicer console fonts with it than the
> icky BIOS screen, too.
..
Missed again cracko. The point was that Joe never got that far. If _you'd_
ever got that far on an Intel PC, you wouldn't be using a PPC to run Linux.
And what's the BS about the beer holding Penguin suppost to mean?
..
> Maybe you should learn something about Linux, Mike!
..
I've been using it since kernel .7. It's not intended for desktop newbies
and since you're having an ongoing problem with headers (Mike???), why not
try a decent Windows newsreader. slrn is obviously beyond you.
..
..
------------------------------
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
Date: 19 Mar 2000 10:58:07 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ok, so tell me, what does "Terminal Services" do that a Tectronics
> does not? What does it give me for all the increased cost in RAM
> and CPU? Give me a reason why I do need 10 M for a user, so I'd
> need 300 M RAM for a peak of 30 users ... what's the gain?
It presents a modern, standard, familiar interface to the user?
>
> > > > Unless you're doing heavy graphics or somesuch, 64 meg is enough
> > > > for
> > > > most PC users now and has been standard for a long time.
>
> > > So has the 640k barrier. :-)
>
> > But that was the standard 15 years ago. Time has moved on.
>
> With 64 MB I can run hundreds of telnet sessions and many
> X-Terminals (it just depends which software the users run, if they
> are running The GIMP (an image manipulation program), one will be
> too many, if they use mutt, vim or similar non-resource-hungry
> programs, I won't run into problems from just having these
> connections.)
>
> How many users can you fit in your NT or W2K with 64 MB?
None, but then I wouldn't *try* with only 64 meg!
>
> > Well yeah, we have gigabyte dual PIII-500 servers too, that's not the
> > point.
>
> > What's special about it is that *everyone* got these. Even the
> > receptionist! All with 19" monitors. All with NT 4. All with 10 gig
> > hard drives. All costing less than a 386-25 with 16 megs, a 500 meg
> > hard drive and a 15" monitor 10 years ago.
>
> A 386-25, 16 MB + 500 MB HD was EXPENSIVE 10 years ago. I know.
> My 386-20-SX, 4MB, 40 MB HD still was well over $2000+. And had a
> 14" screen.
>
> (But then 10GB HD are small today. Cheap, even.)
>
> > THAT'S the reality.
>
> So Word finally needs a PIII-500 to run at a usable speed? :-)
> (Or can you explain what the receptionist *needs* that computing
> power for?)
That's my *entire* point! She *doesn't* need that much power. It's
just that that much power is so *cheap* these days, who cares?
Her machine costs less than the 386-25 from 10 years ago. Complaining
about the resource requirements of todays's OSes when those requirements
come cheaper than 1/100th the power from 10 years ago is kinda silly,
don't you think?
>
> > So if the OS needs 50 megs ram and 500 megs of disk
> > space, who cares?
>
> Your average user with 64 MB. Which you proclaimed was more or
> less standard.
Again, it was/is. 128 meg is becoming the standard *for the same or
less cost than 64 meg 2 years ago*! See the point yet?
> And 10 years ago, DOS used what, 130k at most for a standard
> configuration ... so with 4 MB RAM you'd have 550-600 for
> DOS-Programs and 3 MB for XMS, EMS, Smartdrive. So you could use
> 3.5 MB out of 4 (or 15.5 out of 16), and part of the lossage are
> the PC internals .. but well. That makes 87.5% or ~97.9% memory
> for your perusal. 50 MB filled out of 256 is ~80.5% free.
Except that DOS is hardly in the same OS class that today's systems are.
Add in sound suport, CD/DVD ROM, networking, GUI, etc. and how much of
the 640K is left now? Again you're comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Ok, so now you'll argue with "640k". (Why did you buy 16 MB
> then?) Ok, so you could have bought 640 kb and still have 510
> kb free: that's ~79.7%.
I bought 16 meg to run Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0 Later when I got OS/2
2.1 I swapped motherboards to get a 486-33 and the abiltity to go beyond
16 megs ram (the limit of the 386-25 MB).
>
> You are better off percentage wise? Gee, by less than 1%, and
> that only in a much cheaper configuration than the one you mentioned.
The point is *still* that 256 megs is cheaper today 2 megs was 12 years
ago. Do you remember when ram was $500 a *meg*? I do. It was (one of
the many) reasons OS/2 1.x never took off.
I frankly don't care how much ram todays OSes and apps need. When ram
is less than a dollar a meg and disk prices even cheaper, who cares?
I'd much rather pay $130 for 128 meg ram than $2000 for 4 meg anyday.
As I said before, 10 years from now when we're all running 10 GHZ
processors with 8 gigs ram and terabyte hard disks that come standard on
the $1500 computers of the day, and Linux 10.0 and Mac OS XX and Windows
2010 require 512 megs ram just to boot, will you still be lamenting the
"good old days" when 64 megs was "plenty to get my work done" and
Windows 2000 was "lean and mean"?
Probably, and it will be just as pointless then as it is now.
Dave
------------------------------
From: "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kernel 2.4
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:01:37 GMT
Why to move into 2.4 serie ? Isn't it too many hurry to do it ? Is Linux
falling into market tendences ? What the hell does it matter W2K is out ? I
thought kernels where bullet proof, and by 2.3.51, kernel I tested had some
bugs and a lot of EXPERIMENTAL code ... so why ?
Net Walker.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:18:18 GMT
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill off OS/2
>is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
I agree, but I also think -- in light of what has come out at the M$ antitrust
trial, that there are many, many dirty deeds committed by M$, as well as
mis-information and lies spread by Ziff-Davis and others -- that had just a
large an impact on OS2, as anything that IBM did or didn't do.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Coherency
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:16:47 GMT
One of the things I most like about Unix/Linux is coherency and using one
thousend little tools to create your own megatool efficiently and fast. But
I've found a lot of X11 programs not using things like environment variables
values (try browsing $HOME from Netscape) and such things. Isn't it possible
to combine a good graphical interface while mantaining console good things ?
And by the way, aren't there nowadays too many X11 tools that could
perfectly have been done under console ? Why ? Just 'cause there're
development tools under GTK ? Aren't there Curses or Slang development tools
?
Net Walker.
------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:17:28 -0600
One does not.
On 18 Mar 2000 04:20:36 -0800, bob@nospam wrote:
:
:Why does one have to install IIS on win2000 to simply use ftp?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:21:34 -0500
> I thought kernels where bullet proof, and by 2.3.51, kernel I tested had
> some bugs and a lot of EXPERIMENTAL code ... so why ?
Because odd number revisions (2.1, 2.3, etc..) are developmental, hence
experimental code, and the even numbers, like 2.2 and 2.4 are stable code.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:23:15 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Make linux primary OS at work?
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:18:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> >4. This is the biggie. Synching address book and calendar program
> >(meeting maker) with my palm IIIx. This is very important, as my Pilot
> >will sometimes beep at me and get my lazy ass out of bed so I don't miss
> >early meetings.
>
> I send my condolences. Even if you can find such a program, and I
> doubt one exists simply because it is a useful program and something
> an average guy might like and Linux prefers to cater to the geeks
> henceforth 100 different editors and so forth but not a trace of year
> 2000 quality multimedia. DVD anyone?
Try kpilot.
> >4. Browser plugins.
> > If I browse in linux, I'll be missing out on certain
> >multimedia stuff, right?
>
> How about running a version of Realplayer at least 3 versions behind
> the current Windows version?
>
> Try FINDING the Linux version of RealPlayer on their site and you will
> get a good idea of how much they care about Linux.
>
I had no problem finding RealPlayer 7 for Linux. It's right on their
website. Works great.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 17:38:33 GMT
[comp.sys.amiga.advocacy added, for possible interest]
Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: abraxas wrote:
: >Is it terribly difficult to consider that most operating systems
: >have their niche which they fill quite nicely, leaving room in the
: >world for the others? I mean, its not like anyone is still running
: >AmigaDOS or anything...:)
: >
: Right.... I'm not anyone, so I guess I'm ok. :)
: As a matter of fact, AmigaOS is safer than W95/98 when it comes to viruses
: or at least worms. There's no Internet Explorer with ActiveX and no Outlook
: that blindly runs attached programs...
I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
and it's awfully fast.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:47:38 -0500
In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
>I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
>architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
>and it's awfully fast.
Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
embedded environment.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 17:49:45 GMT
John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
: >I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
: >I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
: >architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
: >and it's awfully fast.
: Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
: embedded environment.
Could you be more specific? After, one thing I can think of that AmigaDOS
has is a built-in GUI engine. Would this not be useful in an embedded
environment? Set-top boxes? Perhaps a control station for a
robotics-baed assmebly plant? Or are you just baiting with anti-Amiga
sentiment?
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
again)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 17:55:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
: >Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill off OS/2
: >is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
: I agree, but I also think -- in light of what has come out at the M$ antitrust
: trial, that there are many, many dirty deeds committed by M$, as well as
: mis-information and lies spread by Ziff-Davis and others -- that had just a
: large an impact on OS2, as anything that IBM did or didn't do.
Would this be a good time to mention IBM's dirty deeds, and how they
often "squished" the smaller companies and spread lies in the name of
profit?
This is what capitalism is... a fight to the death. I for one find
it fitting that IBM get a taste of their own medicine. But then again,
I grew up in an time where Microsoft was the underdog.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 19 Mar 2000 18:00:14 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:31:44 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, a user running as root need only type rm /* -rf to wipe out a system, no
>matter what the file system priveleges are set to.
Er, actually, not. With immutable files and the capabilities system in
Linux you could provide the same protections as you are saying NT has.
Like NT, however, that is not how the default system is configured. Like
NT, hardly anyone ever changes the defaults.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:05:59 GMT
On 19 Mar 2000 08:15:34 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
wrote:
>In article <8b0amn$4mb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8ar214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Everything I said is accurate and stands as is.
No, you have admitted that, for example, your statements about lower
case volume labels and "random" data crashing Windows were either a
function of Gateway or just a theory for which you have no supporting
data.
>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.
Also wrong -- the use of SMARTDRV all by itself will do this.
>>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.
>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?
It can be, fairly easily. In fact, the installation of your video
driver and the configuration you are doing can also be. It requires
enough pre-install work as to not be really effective for a single
install.
>Why do you have to babysit the machine?
You don't -- do you suppose Gateway pays people to sit there and click
"OK" all day?
>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".
As it can be for Windows.
>BTW why does Win2K require 4(!) boot floppies?
It doesn't -- one can boot from the CD, or use a switch to bypass the
creation of these disks and boot from the primary partition. Of
course, if your primary needs a special driver, this won't work --
which is why the boot disks have so many drivers, so that there is a
good chance that special driver will be loaded without user
intervention and installation can proceed.
>>Now, that may not install every driver you need...
>Well, that is probably the biggest part of my procedure.
Ummm: you install drivers for the video, modem and NIC -- you spend
at least that much time doing things like resetting the volume label,
restarting unnecessarily, and checking that the connectoid did indeed
default to its defaults.
>>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. 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.
Pardon? You * asked * that someone point out to you the flaws.
>> > NOTE: DUE TO BUGS IN MICROSOFT FDISK, BADLY >CORRUPTED DISKS CANNOT BE
>>> PARTITIONED. IN THAT CASE INSTALL LINUX TEMPORARILY >UP TO FDISK,
And you misspelled "due to design decisions, FDISK does not gracefully
handle every possible situation, so there are rare instances where a
partition cannot be removed."
>>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.
Of course, one could use DEBUG to do the recovery, but that wouldn't
give one an opportunity to engage in bashing, would it.
>>What is telling you to install Linux? Gateway's literature? lol
>Gateway did not tell me this. 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. And without Linux or possibly some third-party software that
>I do not own, he was right.
DEBUG is on every Win9x startup disk.
------------------------------
From: "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:06:05 GMT
> Because odd number revisions (2.1, 2.3, etc..) are developmental, hence
> experimental code, and the even numbers, like 2.2 and 2.4 are stable code.
I know, but were'nt 2.3.51 going to be turned to 2.4pre ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
