Linux-Advocacy Digest #708, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:34 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:21:11 GMT
>On 14 Mar 2000 23:06:05 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>On 14 Mar 2000 04:49:58 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>Now, to be honest I do not know if you *really* have to reformat and
>>>>start over - perhaps something could be recovered in Safe mode - but
>>>>life is short and I have better things to do with my time than
>>>>experiment with MS bugs.
I seem to be jumping in to the middle of a thread again. Ho-hum. What's this
about MS bugs?
>>>You misspelled "bugs in the NeoMagic MagicGraph 128XD driver," since
>>>it is the only driver I have ever run across / heard about with this
>>>problem.
Oh, you're installing Win95 on a Gateway 2600 laptop. Well, I gotta tell you,
Norman, that you can't really blame Microsoft for all the problems with
Windows on laptops. Laptops are just funny beasts by nature; the difficulty
of building a real set of standards for laptop hardware makes driver problems
a fact of life for laptop owners. It would be nice if we had a standard OS to
provide some needed consistency, of course, and since we don't, we can blame
Microsoft, but that's one of the more general ways in which Microsoft has
cheated consumers, manufacturers, and suppliers. I don't think we're going to
get very far with Roger if we require such comprehensive thinking. (I don't
think we're going to get very far with Roger at all, but that's because he
won't provide any original discussion or go away; he's just here for amusement
value anyway.)
So to get back to specifics...
>>>That being the case, it is likely in the extreme that starting in Safe
>>>Mode would allow you to correct this problem -- exactly as it is
>>>designed to do.
I'll leave my own judgements about the video driver "bug" to another reply
up-thread.
>>Interesting that because you've never heard of it, it therefore can't be
>>an MS bug.
>
>How so? What you have described would be a major bug if it were
>generic to the OS, and would effect other video drivers as well.
The simplistic "if all video drivers aren't affected, it isn't the OS"
troubleshooting is bogus bullshit, Roger. There are any manner of ways in
which it can be Microsoft's fault, and the general statement "their OS sucks"
isn't too extreme to characterize the number of times *everybody else* has
problems. Its nice the way MS can take control and credit of your entire PC,
but can cast aside all blame since they're the ones who supply the one piece
of software that everyone else uses. How does that work, they make the
central OS, so they can't be blamed for problems? Oh yea, anti-competitive
and anti-consumer licensing practices, of course.
But you're saved by the bell this round, Roger, because, yes, the NeoMagic
drivers are very problematic; they're a little buggy in *Linux*, too.
Have
>you reliable reports that such is happening? If not, then it would me
>more sense to call it a driver issue than an OS issue, unless one's
>primary motive was to bash MS.
/flame on/
OK, what's your point? Welcome to alt.destroy.microsoft, asshole. Our
primary motive is to bash MS. They suck, they write shitty software, and they
are a blight on our society. Have a nice day.
/flame off/
Actually, Roger, it was indeed one in a long list of examples of problems used
to characterize the difficulties involved in a host of "OS issues", as you put
it. The intent of presenting this list was, indeed, to "bash MS", such being
the topic of discussion here quite commonly. Have a nice day.
>>Granted, and also granted that it could (appear to be) fixed
>>in Safe Mode, how do you really know that some deeper hidden damage
>>hasn't also occurred that will only show up later?
>
>Again, should such have occurred, it would have been a function of the
>driver messing things up.
Roger, dear roger; you haven't any way whatsoever to even begin to guess where
to draw the line between Windows and the video driver. Give it up. If we
could ever get bored discussing how much Microsoft sucks, you would certainly
bore us to tears. I can't believe after all these years, you're still
trolling... dude, I think you've got some psychiatric problems.
> I have also never heard of this kind of
>collateral damage occurring with the installation of a driver. So, in
>answer to your question -- there is no way to KNOW absolutely that
>such did not occur, but it is unlikely.
Yes, there is a way to KNOW absolutely that such did occur, which is why
Microsoft keeps their source code entirely secret. So it is unlikely it can
ever be proven in a court of law. It can never be proven to you, simply by
the nature of your problems.
>>Since you don't have
>>the source code and don't know the precise nature of the bug, you cannot
>>know that. I am trying to do a clean install that will hopefully last
>>at least a month or more, so why should I take the risk, especially
>>contrary to Gateway's advice? Windows has enough mysterious flaky
>>problems as it is, so I want to eliminate as many unknowns as possible.
>
>Reformat and reinstall is a common recommendation for a number of
>organizations, for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to
>do with it being the best / only way of resolving the issue
All of which have one thing in common: they're because Microsoft's software
sucks rocks through a straw. And, yes, by definition any organization that
recommends reformat/re-install does so because it is the most effective and
efficient way of resolving the problem, to their knowledge and experience.
Since everybody has to use the same crappy OS, everybody accepts *Microsoft's*
recommendation to R&R in many cases.
>>In any case it is irrelevant to my procedure, because it's something I
>>say NOT to do. I experienced it once, and that was enough for me to
>>simply avoid it from that point forward.
>
>Yes, let's address that procedure now, since you earlier asked what
>could be eliminated:
>
>>Instructions for reinstalling Windows 95 on Gateway Solo 2300 laptop
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
>>6. Press F9. Says: Notice | Default values have been loaded [Continue].
>>
>>7. Press ENTER, ESC, ENTER, ENTER. Floppy boots to [MAIN MENU].
>
>Unless you have made changes to your BIOS setup, which you don't
>mention having made elsewhere, 5 6 and 7 can be eliminated altogether.
This step is required to ensure a known state for the COM 2 and IR port
settings. I have experience with the "magic steps" which the Gateway 2600
requires in order to configure it. I would not skip any steps. It almost
goes without saying that I would not be stupid enough to tell someone else to
skip those steps if I had no idea what I was talking about, as you are doing.
>>8. Select EXIT PROGRAM, GO BACK TO DOS
>>
>>Note: If you are just reinstalling Windows and don't want to touch partition
>>D: data, goto step 10A below now.
>
>You have not described the issues twould cause you to need to touch
>your partitions, so everything down to 10a can be eliminated as well
Once again, the same underlying hint of your intellectual deficiencies seem to
show themselves; you have said that since you are not aware of something, it
must not exist. Your point seems to be simply to attempt to minimize the
number of steps required to reinstall Windows on the 2600, a feat which I will
quickly point out is a very very intricate and problematic one; I say this, I
remind you, from extensive personal experience. This after I remember seeing
several entreaties to not do just that very thing. I would assume Norman
desired more substantive discussion on the comprehensive issue of these
intricacies, rather than be side-tracked by a demonstrationist waste of time
such as what you laboriously post to interfere with rational debate.
>>9. Delete partitions. (The first 2 formats ensure labels are uppercase.)
>>At A:\> type:
>>
>>NOTE: DUE TO BUGS IN MICROSOFT FDISK, BADLY CORRUPTED DISKS CANNOT BE
>>PARTITIONED. IN THAT CASE INSTALL LINUX TEMPORARILY UP TO FDISK, AND
>>USE LINUX FDISK TO REMOVE ALL PARTITIONS AND CREATE A DOS PARTITION.
>>Then then MS FDISK should start working.
>>
>> fdisk /mbr <- if boot sector is corrupted
>
>And since you have not mentioned that the boot sector is corrupt, this
>could be skipped in any case.
Why? So that later when the OS pukes on itself and your apps and
configurations again, it can be blamed on a bad hard disk?
>> (The following 2 formats change the label to uppercase to workaround an
>> FDISK bug.)
>
>Why / how had they become lower case to begin with?
Why/how is that relevant to the FDISK bug?
>> format /q c:
>> y
>> AL
>> format /q d:
>> y
>> AM
>> fdisk
>> 3 (Delete partition or Logical DOS Drive)
>> 4 (Delete Non-DOS Partition - says: No Non-DOS Partition to delete)
>
>If you know that there is not a non-DOS partition, why would you try
>to delete it?
To verify there is no non-DOS partition. Did you miss the part above about
the MS bug which causes him to need to do this?
[...]
>>10A. (Continuation point if just reinstalling Windows)
>> Note: the /u is important because Windows is (more) flaky if
>> there is old random background data on the disk.
>
>Proof of the above assertion?
When you're working with Windows, you *gotta* use "voodoo". That goes without
saying by those beyond the "Microsoft dweeb" state you seem to be stuck in,
Roger.
>> format /u/c c:
>>
>> Y (Proceed with Format (Y/N)?)
>> [wait 10 min]
>> ENTER (Volume label... [leave blank])
>>
>>11. Install CD-ROM drivers as follows:
>>
>> sys c:
>
>If you use the command format /u /s c: you can skip the sys command
>here.
I'm sure Norman appreciate the helpful advice, numbnuts.
>> CTRL+ALT+DEL
>
>Or simply type "autoexec" at the a: prompt, since you seem to need the
>batch processes.
Sorry, that's more keystrokes. ***BZZZZZZ*** You lose.
>> Select: INSTALL CD-ROM DRIVERS ON YOUR HARD DRIVE
>> F1
>> Press space bar (Press any key to return to the main menu.)
>> Select: EXIT PROGRAM, GO BACK TO DOS
>>
>>12. Take out boot diskette. Put in Windows 95 CD. Press CTRL+ALT+DEL.
>>At C:\> prompt:
>>
>> md cabs
>> e:
>> cd win95
>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>
>Not necessary -- Win95 installs just fine from CD.
What a goofball. Never gotten tagged by the "CD bootstrap" problem, Roger?
Never noticed how Win95 installs at least twice as fast from the hard drive?
Never needed the cabs for anything after the install? Strike that, Roger;
you're not a goofball; you're an idiot.
The Gateway 2600, like many other systems both laptop and desktop, makes it
impossible for Windows to install "straight" from the CD. It reboots itself
before detecting the CD drivers. If you don't install from the hard drive,
you have to reboot manually and convince Windows to continue the install, and
you *DON'T* want to do that during the Gateway 2600 "magic steps"; the install
will NOT take, and that is, again, bitter experience.
>>13. Take out Windows 95 CD. Put in Multimedia Notebook System CD.
>>
>> cd win95\solo2300\vxdinf
>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>
>Likely not necessary, since this will install from CD as well.
Your stupidity is only exceeded by your repetitiveness, Rog.
>> cd \
>> c:
>> cd \cabs
>> setup
>> ENTER (...routine check... To continue, press ENTER. To quit Setup, press ESC.)
>> x (Select EXit)
>
>I would recommend the command setup /id (skips disk space check) /is
>(skips Scandisk) /im (skips check for memory) /iq (skips check for
>crosslinked files)
Wow, you just saved him a good forty seconds in a forty minute install.
Nifty.
>Also, load SMARTDRV first -- the install will go * much * faster...
You're not listening. You're not paying any attention at all. THIS IS THE
GATEWAY LAPTOP 2600 MAGIC INSTALL. DO NOT F@CK WITH IT! And stop trying to
make us feel comfortable having to make up for a BROKEN operating system which
requires being completely re-installed (and takes your app configurations with
it even if you *don't* reformat) on a routine basis. JESUS you're stupid!
>>18. The computer will reboot.
>>
>> Close (Welcome to Windows)
[...]
>> OK in Select Device (NeoMagic MagicGraph 128XD should be the
>> only one) (2nd overlaid Select Device)
>> Monitor (Advanced Display Properties)
[...]
>> OK (Select Device)
>> Apply (Advanced Display Properties, Monitor)
[...]
>> Apply (Display Properties) (WARNING: DO NOT PRESS 'CLOSE' HERE
>> BECAUSE DISPLAY WILL DISAPPEAR, THE COMPUTER WILL LOCK UP
>> PERMANENTLY EVEN IF YOU TRY TO REBOOT, AND YOU'LL HAVE TO
>> REFORMAT DISK AND START OVER
>> Yes (System Settings Change ...restart your computer now?)
>
>This restart in unnecessary, since you have other things to configure
This restart is absolutely and completely necessary; if you don't reboot now,
those "other things" may be MISconfigured, and you'll have to do THE WHOLE
THING OVER AGAIN FROM SCRATCH.
>>19. The computer restarts.
[...]
>> No (Systems Settings Change)
>
>Enabling the second controller is unnecessary -- on the reboot, it
>will be enabled as a consequence of enabling the first one.
Once again, you speak from lack of experience with this procedure. Gateway
seems to think it is necessary to check to make sure as there are many parts
of this install procedure which don't seem to work as "automatically" (or at
least correctly) as they're supposed to. Couldn't be MS bugs, of course; must
be somebody else's fault.
[...]
>> Power on computer
>
>I would move this to before the PC Card stuff and avoid another boot.
You would start over again from scratch. Eventually, you would learn to do
all those parts that you're insisting aren't necessary now. But you'd still
insist it isn't MS's fault; you'd blame Gateway. If there was much else to
say for other manufacturers, I might even agree. But the fact is, they all do
Windows, they all have problems. You want to insist there can be no causal
link, and several years listening to that idea get pummeled into paste aren't
enough for you. Dedication, or pig-headedness? You decide.
>> Start
[...]
>> Shutdown
>
>And this reboot can be avoided by refreshing the DevMan.
Says you. And you're probably wrong again. And guess what that means? Yes,
that's right; start over from scratch AGAIN.
>> (Insert Multimedia Notebook System CD)
>> Close Internet Explorer
>
>Or hold down the shift key to bypass Autorun.
Or get an operating system that doesn't suck. Oh, sorry; I forgot that wasn't
an option. But holding down the shift key to bypass Autorun is (usually).
[...]
>> OK (You must provide computer and workgroup names...)
>
>Of course, choosing a custom setup to begin with, you can specify all
>of this during the initial installation...
Yea, and you get to re-specify it during each and every re-installation, too.
Not to mention go through clickey-clickey HELL in that "smart people should be
discouraged from screwing with the holy Windows" configuration process.
[...]
>>Start
>> Shutdown
>> Restart Computer
>> OK
>
>Why the restart here -- you've just restarted and not made any
>changes?
Are you beginning to catch on, Roger? No, probably not.
[...]
>If you're installing a printer here, why did you cancel out of it
>earlier?
Like you care, or had a clue, either way.
>>[To install dial-up connection]
>
>Again, handled during install
Again, those of us with experience like to do these things the *right* way,
rather than the *Microsoft* way.
[...]
>> TelePath XJ5560 with x2 and cellular
>
>Why go to Configure, etc. when you are not making any changes?
Because there are some times when Windows needs you to do that. But its not
an MS bug, no, can't be...
>> [v] Start terminal screen minimized
>
>Well, that'll do for starters...
That'll do for closers.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:52 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:10:16 GMT
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
>
>>When MS pressures Intel and Compaq NOT to even pursue software development,
>>or to put any kind of software on top of windows, what do you call that?
>
>I certainly don't call that proof that MS pressures hardware
>manufacturers not to support any other OS, which is the claim in this
>thread.
>
>Care to address that topic? Without the ad hominem this time?
No, the ad hominem stays; you're an idiot, Roger. The particular refute for
your particular pedantic idiocy is the neo-per-processor-licensing. This is
what 'pressures' MS applies to manufacturers to prevent them from supporting
any other OS. It is public record that this exists; the proof will
nevertheless skitter out from under your hawkish gaze, as always.
>>Roger wrote:
[the same tired crap]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:49 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:54:27 -0500
>
>Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8al1j8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Here is the repost. Keep in mind that I originally put this together
>> for my own reference, which I am providing as a courtesy, and they are a
>> few things like customizing the mouse cursor that might not be
>> absolutely essential for everyone.
>
>Ah . . . let's analyze this :-)
Ooh, yea, lets... :-)
>Yes, customizing a mouse is definitely not a necessary part of installing an
>OS. So that shouldn't be in the document if you're saying how hard it is to
>install Windows.
He's not saying how hard it is to install Windows; he's saying it is hard to
install Windows.
>> I'm sure you guys will nitpick it to
>> death, but it works and is accurate and complete.
>
>Well, I live in New York City and it would work for me to take a trip to
>Boston by first flying to South Africa, taking a slow boat to China, etc.
>but that's not what I really need to do to get to Boston, is it?
It is if you have to go by way of South Africa because there's only one
airplane and you don't know how to fly it...
>By the way, most OEMs provide restore disks. If something gets screwed up
>with Windows, the restore disks are designed to put your system back to its
>"original" state with one click or one number selection and "enter" (the
>latter if you can't boot Windows and your BIOS can't do a CD boot).
By the way, most OEMs restore disks are entirely irrelevant; this is the
procedure to install Windows; the OEM restore disks are a way to reinstall a
system state; they cannot be used to reinstall Windows, even on those
machines. MS loves this idea, and you parrot how "easy" it is, when the
entire discussion is how disfunctional the situation is that prevents Windows
from being installed by end-users, whether by intent or by design, and then
allows you idiots to proclaim that Linux is not preferable to Windows because
its tough to install. Its double-talk and horse hockey, by the way.
>>so that I can begin to re-install and customize all my
>> apps (which takes another hour or two and is not covered here). It also
>> does not include configuring the network properties and installing the
>> firewall that I use.
>
>It shouldn't. Those aren't part of installing an OS itself. They are
>things the OS can do, but they aren't part of installing the OS.
Neither's installing Explorer or Outlook, but you gotta do those, too... And
since they both require networking correctly configured to be usable, and
Microsoft is the one who insists that Explorer is part of the OS, I'd say
that's more doubletalk and horse hockey from the MS-lovers camp.
> > As I mentioned earlier, I am not asking for advice (not that any has
>> been given other than emotional rants about how I am incompetent and
>> don't know what I'm talking about).
>
>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.
I think that was the point, and you missed it.
>> This procedure works for me, it has
>> been debugged, and I'm used to it and will continue to use it and I'm
>> not interested in endless discussions on how I could refine it to save a
>> step or two (if it ain't broke don't fix it...)
>
>Again, it could work for me to get to Boston via Johannesburg and Hong Kong
>. . .
In other words "don't bother; we will ignore any such plea and deconstruct the
details endlessly, providing endless reminders of ways to save a step or two
in order to again pretend that our ridicule is either helpful or humorous".
[...]
>> SOLO 2X/51/91
>
>Their Rescue Disks?
Their "magic disks", containing undocumented .vdx updates to account for
Microsoft's characteristically self-serving OS updates which caused great
confusion at everyone else's expense by botching the release of BusCard driver
code.
>> BOOT DISKETTE
>
>If the SOLO 2X/51/91 is Gateway's Rescue Disk floppies, you don't need a
>Windows boot floppy. Gateway's Rescue Disks would boot the Windows
>installer.
How helpful. I mean useless.
>> Version 1.4
>> Disk 1 or 1
>
>What is Version 1.4 and Disk 1 or 1?
>Or is this all a long way of saying, "The Gateway Rescue Disk(s)?"
No, this is a different "magic disk" with undocumented .vxd updates. Once
again, the point of this discussion, I believe, is to illustrate that the
common assumption that Windows is "click-click-installed" and Linux is "tough
to install" is an entirely bogus fabrication. This misconception is based on
two things:
1) Intentional confusion between the concepts of installing an OS and being a
PC integrator
2) Intentional cheating of the mass public by Microsoft, accomplished through
'1)' and a host of other illegal and/or anti-competitive activities.
>> TELEPATH MODEM
>> XJ5560 with Cellular and x2 Technology
>> Installation Disk
>
>Technically, installing the modem isn't installing the OS.
Neither is installing the video card drivers or Internet Explorer; what's your
point?
>In any event,
>that must be a modem that is newer than Win95?
Which Win95?
> If so, was it the modem that
>came with the machine?
Yes, why?
>There's a couple big problems here:
>(1) Why is Gateway selling you a machine with a modem that is newer than the
>OS?
So now everybody is supposed to stop making new hardware until Microsoft says
its OK?
>It should have had whatever OS came out after the modem, unless the
>modem came out _right_ after the OS release and MS didn't know that it was
>about to come out and would need a different driver, and
What have you been smoking?
>(2) If this is the modem that came with the machine, why isn't the driver
>install on the Gateway Rescue Disk? It's supposed to be.
Strike that; nobody gets that stupid from smoking. You better rush to the
hospital and have your stomach pumped.
>> EtherDisk Version 5.3 (DOS 1.44 MB)
>> EtherLink III PC Card Adapter
>
>Networking stuff isn't technically part of the OS install either, especially
>a Win95 install.
You know, for an MS dweeb, you don't seem to have a very good handle on the
Corporate Line.
> If you're installing WinNT workstation or something, it
>would be more arguable that networking is part of the OS install.
So now whether or not something is part of an OS install depends on what OS
you're installing? Make up your mind, would you?
>If you've
>installed both, you'd know what I mean.
I've installed both. I have no idea what you mean.
>> 5. Press F2 during bootup to invoke setup.
>
>Or--"take out all cards, connect the floppy, stick the boot floppy and
>Gateway Rescue CD/Win95 CD in and turn the machine on."
All right, I'm not going to do this again.
>I don't understand why you have to go to BIOS after you boot. You shouldn't
>have to. I've installed Windows on hundreds of machines (and yes, on a few
>of them it seems like a hundred times) and I've never had to go to BIOS
>right away.
What do you know; something outside your experience. How novel. I wonder
just how many of those hundreds of installs were on late model laptops? It
seems you would be simply lucky if they were and you'd never had to configure
your BIOS to get the install to work.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Drestin Black from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:58:37
-0500
>
>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ah2mk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> For the hardware I described every step is necessary. Please tell me
>> what step is not necessary if you think I am wrong.
>
>Can you allow me to make up a hardware/pre-existing software setup that is
>as massively contrieved and specifically hostile to a linux setup as humanly
>possible and then give you ever single possible option step to an
>idiots-guide-to-setting-up-an-OS and find it relates to... what again?
Excuse me, this is a "made for Windows" off-the-shelf pre-configured system
(albeit a laptop) from a major vendor. This is NOT a predesigned "torture
test"; it's just Windows-as-usual.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:54 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 01:25:04 GMT
>You didnt have to go through all that partition crap. Theres a lot of
>partition software out there thats much easier than what you used. You
>also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
Yes, you do. On the Gateway 2600, those steps are absolutely 110% essential;
I know that without a doubt. In fact, my procedure (which goes a bit further,
but dates from a couple years ago, and may have been dealing with different
hardware or software revisions) went farther; I had to rip out the whole damn
PCI Bus in order to get "Windows" to install with all the drivers working.
>removed the pcmcia stuff to install, you wouldnt have had to have put them
>back and configured them individually. I make a habit of out of using
>pcmcia hardware that is supported completely by windows98 (much easier
>now with win2000) "out of the box". That way, when I reboot windows just
>installs the proper drivers all by itself. You might have to click "ok"
>on a dialog box or two though.
Or be brain-dead. That helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
