Linux-Advocacy Digest #710, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 11:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (mr_organic)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (abraxas)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Matt Gaia)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (abraxas)
Re: A Micro$oft plot called Java (mr_organic)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 20 Mar 2000 14:42:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:31:49 GMT, mr_organic pronounced:
>On 17 Mar 2000 21:58:46 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>Good design documents are integral, but having nothing to do with
>debugging.
>
I couldn't let this one pass without a comment, as this shows
exactly the mind-numbingly formulaic way most Wincoders approach
the problem. "Nothing to do with debugging?" Yeesh! Design
documents *describe* the functionality of a given module; if
the module does not work correctly, the design documents are the
first place to go before debugging to see what the behavior *should*
be. Debugging isn't just fixing something that is broken; it's
making something work *correctly*.
mr_organic
>
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:31:35 +0000
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > So far, I have come to learn through these newsgroups that W2K is
> > riddled with more than 60,000 bugs
>
> lie
>
wasn't there a leaked statement from MS themselves that said as much?
Please Drestin, tell us it wasn't so.
> >, cannot scale to Hotmail-style services,
>
> lie
>
a lie you say? Well, by golly, why hasn't /Microsoft/ Hotmail been moved
to WNT? Surely it would a matter of pride and principle for an OS vendor
to have such a high profile site run on their own OS, rather than that
of their competitors? (ie FreeBSD on x86, Sun Solaris on Sparc)
And surely they have had enough time to make such a move? (it's been
what, nearly 2 years since MS bought hotmail?)
Please Drestin, i must ask you to qualify this statement and provide
conclusive proof that W2K could scale to something as big as hotmail.
(you have such an exemplary record of substantiating your claims, that I
am sure you will be able to provide in-depth factual case-studies as
evidence in assertation of your claim).
> >is not selling very well,
>
> lie
>
A lie you say? Why, by jove, knowing what a fine a reputation you have
for integrity I am sure you must have the very latest W2K sales figures
right by your hand. Please do share.
Curiously, i know of noone that has bought, or has even talked about
possibly buying it. But I of course do not have the fine social standing
as your refined self.
Though most certainly you can enlighten us as to how the multitudes have
discreetly flocked to buy W2K, and perhaps you'd care to comment on why
these undoubted millions have not told their friends and colleagues
about their new hard-paid for or even installed it. Perhaps W2K should
be dubbed the "Quiet" OS?
> as opposed to an administrative nightmate of endless command lines, scripts
> and man lookups?
>
Ah.. man pages a nightmare? Oh, by heavens, why could you not have
shared this ray of eternal truth with me before. Had I known i might
have educated myself more profitably by reading the Windows Online
Help...
> man - if that is what you got from reading newsgroups - I suggest enlarging
> your subscriptions from alt.ms.sucks and linux.advocacy to something more
> representative of what everyone else says.
Oh drestin, guru, we the unwashed would love to drink the fountain of
knowledge that you so obviously must do. However the MS internal news
groups aren't accessible to us, and so we must stay ignorant on c.o.l.a.
However, we beseach you to take pity on us heathens, and implore you to
continue to spread the word of Redmond amongst us, so that we may hope
to aspire to attain the purity of W2K as you so clearly have done.
yours in genuflection,
Paul Jakma.
A sinner in Unix for over 4 years now, and possesed by the wicked daemon
of GNU Free Software ideals. Also a worshipper of multiple Gods...
(Ritchie, Thompson, Stallman & Torvalds)
sneer....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 20 Mar 2000 10:41:04 -0500
In article <8b2qtv$mm3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> 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.
The only "problems" are a few inefficient steps. And some of these may
actually be required for my particular setup, but I don't want to waste
time experimenting.
>First of all, at least half of your procedure is _not_ for installing an OS.
Well, since you don't call partitioning/formatting the disk and
installing drivers part of "installing an OS" I guess not. So maybe I
should just call it a "Procedure Guaranteed to Get My Computer to Work
Again After Windows Corrupts It." BTW Linux does include partitioning
and formatting, all the way up to network setup and even installing the
most common apps, as part of its OS installation.
>There were a number of questions I asked you that I hope you answered below,
>such as "Why no Gateway Rescue Disks?"
I don't know. Ask Gateway. My procedure shows you exactly the disks
they provided.
>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.
Well, thanks anyway but I only do this several times a year, not every
day. It's not worth my time to risk "fine-tuning" something that I know
works and that is not going to be greatly improved. I have spent enough
time with Gateway, who have more experience than you with this
particular hardware/OS combination.
>Did you ever install Windows on your machine with less than that entire
>procedure?
Yes. Sometimes that has fixed things and sometimes it hasn't. After
several such experiments I've concluded it's usually most efficient for
me, as an individual user, just to redo the entire procedure. In
particular, if an obscure problem remains because I omitted a step, I
risk wasting the time spent on the *rest* of the process not shown, i.e.
reinstalling apps and restoring my data from backup. You will notice
that I do sometimes skip the FDISK part; observe the "goto" in my
procedure.
In your case, where you have done 1500 or more installs, perhaps you
have a familiarity with the most common recurring Windows bugs that
tells you you which of them can be addressed with a truncated version of
this whole process. I don't have that experience, nor is it my goal to
acquire it, so what might work for you is not appropriate for me.
>If yes, then it's not all necessary for an install is it?
It is necessary only if I want predictable, guaranteed results. I want
to minimize the time I spend later dealing with flaky problems. As with
any buggy software, the fewer the unknowns you have while using Windows
the better you are able to cope with it.
>> >The general procedure ... is:
>
>> This is completely incorrect for Windows 95 on the machine I described.
>
>What is incorrect about it?
It omits everything except the basic Windows 95 installation itself,
which is only a small part of the whole process needed to get the
machine to work. But, since you have told me that only this small part
is the actual "OS installation", I stand corrected.
>> "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?
No. I'm making an argument that it's an annoying waste of time. I'm
amazed that it doesn't annoy you, who has sat through at least 1500 of
these.
>> 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.
So why doesn't it just get the 5.6 MB when it accesses the CD-ROM?
Having to carry around (and not misplace) 3 extra diskettes is a
nuisance for the user. Or are you saying that the driver needed just to
access the CD-ROM has grown to 5.6 MB in size in Win2K?
>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?
The "Multimedia" CD has most of the drivers on it, in various
subdirectories that must be individually indicated to the Wizard.
Sometimes more than once during a single driver installation due to a
Wizard bug that forgets where they were.
>If you're not using the Gateway RDs, why are you listing something other
>than the Win95 RD for the initial boot?
This is what was provided by Gateway.
>Version 1.4 of what? All you need here is the Win95 boot disk to get
>started.
I now see your confusion, sorry. There is only one diskette, "SOLO
2X/51/91, BOOT DISKETTE, Version 1.4, Disk 1 of 1" that I displayed on
four lines to imitate the label. Not four diskettes.
>>>> 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.
>
>And I thought you said this was a necessary procedure to install
>Windows?
It is necessary only if FDISK won't partition the disk. See the words
"in that case".
>Again, if you are reinstalling from scratch, you don't _need_ to
>recover a corrupted disk--you're going to reformat.
FORMAT requires a partitioned disk as a prerequisite. "Recover" was the
wrong word, sorry; I meant regenerate the partition information when
that information is corrupted.
>> 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.
No, I am blaming MS for a buggy FDISK program.
>>>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?"
You'll have to explain the nature of what you do. You say you've run
FDISK 1500 times. If that is on disks you've replaced, then the new
ones are already set up for FDISK and you will never experience the
bug. Also I am puzzled when on the one hand you say FDISK is not a
part of OS installation, yet it is something you have apparently done in
1500 of your (unknown number of) OS installations.
>> 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.
[Sigh] OK. Looking quickly thru it I see some questions that I have
not answered elsewhere:
>(1) Why is Gateway selling you a machine with a modem that is newer
>than the OS?
I don't know. You will have to ask them. Since the Windows 95 at the
time was the latest MS release, it could be that MS did not keep up with
the current technology.
>(2) If this is the modem that came with the machine, why isn't the
>driver install on the Gateway Rescue Disk?
There is no "Gateway Rescue Disk". The modem and ethernet cards have
separate driver floppies. The other hardware drivers are on the
"Multimedia" CD.
>> 8. Select EXIT PROGRAM, GO BACK TO DOS
>What program are you exiting? Why?
This is the menu from the Solo boot diskette, that comes up instead of
the DOS prompt when you boot from it.
>What is partition D here? A plain old Win95 install will only involve
>sticking Win95 on the C drive. Why is your disk partitioned with a D drive?
The machine came this way because the FAT16 format they chose does not
support more than 2GB. But it is also convenient: if I keep my user
files on the D partition, I don't have to restore it from backup if I
can get by with just reformatting C and reinstalling the OS on it. I
mention this in the instructions; notice there is a "goto" before the
FDISK part.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:43:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Solaris 2.5.1 works just fine on my sparcbook.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:45:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Neat. I know without a doubt that you are absolutely incorrect, because ive
actually DONE it.
> 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.
Do you always overcomplicate problems like this?
You've got quite an impressive signature for such an entirely unimpressive
person.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:47:04 -0500
>wasn't there a leaked statement from MS themselves that said as much?
>Please Drestin, tell us it wasn't so.
Yes, it was so. A leak from inside MS stated that there was about 63,000+
potential bugs in W2K.
>a lie you say? Well, by golly, why hasn't /Microsoft/ Hotmail been moved
>to WNT? Surely it would a matter of pride and principle for an OS vendor
>to have such a high profile site run on their own OS, rather than that
>of their competitors? (ie FreeBSD on x86, Sun Solaris on Sparc)
<sarcasm> Maybe it's because of MS's willingness to give other operating
systems a chance to survive </sarcasm> . . . before they attempt a hostile
takeover.
>And surely they have had enough time to make such a move? (it's been
>what, nearly 2 years since MS bought hotmail?)
Roughly 2, yes.
>A lie you say? Why, by jove, knowing what a fine a reputation you have
>for integrity I am sure you must have the very latest W2K sales figures
>right by your hand. Please do share.
Maybe he was going by the OEM sales, since those should be up near 1
million.
>Curiously, i know of noone that has bought, or has even talked about
>possibly buying it. But I of course do not have the fine social standing
>as your refined self.
Myself included. MS has done more than enough to drive me away from their
operating systems.
>> as opposed to an administrative nightmate of endless command lines, scripts
>> and man lookups?
And the Windows help file is any better? I think the only reason that the
file exists is to mass-mail it, multiple times, to people who really piss
you off, so you can flood their mailbox. And if you actually *do* read
them, how hard is it to read a man file? In most cases, you get the
variations on the command, any options, then examples. Or maybe their not
up to standard, because you their not "pointy-clicky".
Another ignoramus to the all-mighty God Bill,
Matt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:51:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 17:52:56 GMT
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> You also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
>>
>>> Yes I did.
>>
>>You know, you swear up and down that you dont know anything about
>>computers, that youre not a system installer person, etc. and then you
>>have the bollocks to disagree with someone who actually knows what
>>theyre talking about. I'm beginning to understand exactly why the
>>tech support person on the other end of the phone gave you the
>>instructions they did. I probably would have told you to throw in
>>a little chant and a coupla hail marys in there too.
> They do. You haven't any idea what you're talking about, sorry. You may feel
> like the "King of all PCs", but yes, he did. Gateway knows he did, I know he
> did, he knows he did, MICROSOFT knows he did. Why are you so sure he didn't?
Because ive done it, and my experience is very different.
Then again, I do know a thing or two about the way computers work.
BTW, id just love to know...
Is anyone getting this yet? Escaping killfiles is my bag, man.
>>> Well, perhaps I could have pushed them in simultaneously instead of one
>>> at a time,
> NO! YOU CAN'T! YOU'LL HAVE TO START OVER FROM SCRATCH IF YOU DO!
I wonder if you realize that youre responding to two different people here.
>>>saving me one step out of several hundred, but when I did
>>> this originally Windows got confused by what drivers were where - while
>>> swapping drivers floppies etc. - because I installed two things at once
>>> without rebooting in between. Perhaps I made a mistake somewhere, but I
>>> just didn't want to waste time with more experiments.
>>
>>You have no idea what im talking about, or what youre talking about. Again,
>>you're saying that you have no experience with sort of thing (and also seem
>>to have a willingness to learn) and then you turn around and fight with
>>people who actually know what theyre talking about. No wonder youre so
>>unhappy with this whole thing. I doubt youd be happy with a freakin toaster.
> One doesn't re-install Windows on a Gateway 2600 without getting experience
> with that specific task. When that knowledge conflicts with your generic
> knowledge of this "sort of thing", you would be wise to bow to the expertise
> of the one with the particular experience.
Ive had experience with this sort of thing. Alot of it. You are WRONG.
Nice sig though. Must get you lots of jobs.
> One of my pet peeves with One Microsoft Way is how it convinces people that
> they know how computers work because they think they know how Windows works.
> Nothing personal, pook, but the value of having "installed Windows on hundreds
> of PCs" isn't really a lot when it comes to knowing what you're talking about.
Thats not all ive done, brainiac. Installing windows on hundreds of PCs is
incedental. I do much, much more impressive things to actually earn money.
>>> 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, you don't know what you're talking about. Call Gateway. And believe me,
> NOBODY grills a tech support jockey like I do;
This explains quite alot, and the funniest bit of it is that I know damn well
that you have no idea what im talking about. You are doomed to a long and
difficult time with computers forever.
> much of this procedure *sounds*
> like voodoo, I know. But that's the point, dammit.
No, it doesnt sound like voodoo. It sounds entirely unessesary and stupid.
>>You should have done more thinking and more research before you bought
>>the machine in the firstplace. Your current situation is due completely
>>to your own ignorance.
> When all else fails, blame the guy for having the problem. Typically MS
> quackery. This is the kind of bullshit that enables MS to do such a piss-poor
> job for so much money and still blame all the problems on somebody else.
Uhhmmm...Just so you know, I really actually dont like windows, and I really
actually despise microsoft quite passionately. You would realize this if you
had read any of my other posts under this moniker before responding to this
one.
> The only reason this issue is Gateway's fault is because they signed the damn
> per-processor agreements so they could make money selling PCs to begin with.
Nice sig.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic)
Subject: Re: A Micro$oft plot called Java
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:13:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Mar 2000 14:32:19 GMT, mr_organic pronounced:
>Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sometime i think Java is a M$ plot.
>
>No. J-script is a microsoft plot. Java is a Sun Microsystems
>plot.
>
>> Without Java all the time and efforts of
>> good guys and groups like Blackdown
>> could have been aimed at shaping
>> Linux into a _decent_ gui-based
>> alternative to Windows.
>
>Without java, the point of linux would have been exactly the
>same. The only people talking about creating a "decent gui-
>based alternative to windows" are distribution companies---
>
>Who actually have nothing to do with the way linux actually
>WORKS.
>
>-----yttrx
>
I want to put in my own $0.02 here. Over the past couple of
years, several teams have been working on creating a good
"GUI" for Linux. GNOME and KDE are only the most obvious
examples: the massive number of window managers (Enlightenment,
WindowMaker, ICEWM, etc.) reflect a similar urge on the part
of developers to give users a good graphical "experience".
The problem is that, at least on the Unix side, no one can
define what a good GUI *is*. The proliferation of window
managers proves that "good" means different things to different
people. Even when the goal seems to be common -- as between
GNOME and KDE -- the approach is different.
there's also the problem that introducing GUI toolkits introduces
a lot of overhead and program complexity, which leads to lots of
bugs. Programmers give up a lot for a pretty GUI, and unfortunately
one of the things they give up is program stability and robustness.
Many people believe that's why the overall quality of software has
been decreasing over the past decade -- GUIs have driven down the
bar for software to the point that people *expect* software to be
unstable.
My own thinking is that GUIs as a whole are something of a blind
alley -- a GUI is great for some things, lousy for others. To
simply assume that it is the best computer/human interface is
(in my mind) a mistake. With the proliferation of other kinds of
computing devices -- handhelds, cell phones, tablets, etc. -- we
can no longer go with the traditional WIMP interface; what's
needed are some new ways of envisioning human/computer interaction.
Regards,
mr_organic
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 20 Mar 2000 10:56:58 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>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.
Lower case labels: A bug in FDISK doesn't tolerate them. Statement
correct. The source of the lower case labels is irrelevant.
"Random" data crashing: I experienced it. Gateway confirmed it.
Statement correct.
I had a theory about "random" data crashing. My statement that it was a
theory is correct.
The supporting data for my theory is that with clean background disk
data the install worked fine, and with random background disk data the
install hung. That of course does not mean that my theory is fact,
and I never claimed that it was.
>>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.
By significantly shorter I mainly had in mind reducing the number of
steps in the procedure as I posted it, so we're changing the rules.
SMARTDRV, if it works in the laptop procedure, may shave
some time off, but it adds to the number of steps in the procedure. BTW
how would you explain that Gateway doesn't use it for phone warranty
support, when they have to wait on the phone just as long as the user
for the install?
>>"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.
Well I am effectively talking about single installs (several times per
year).
>>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?
Of course not, they clone the disk. But I don't have the clone and have
to sit there and click "OK" over and over. So this is irrelevant to my
situation.
>>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.
But it isn't in my case and that's what is relevant.
>
>>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.
So how come other OS's can get by with 1 boot floppy?
>>> > 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."
Is this supposed to be a joke? A bug is a bug. Sheesh. Well, it is
excellent satire. Or was it taken from the MS web site?
>>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.
Yes, I suppose one can write a program in machine language to feed to
DEBUG to repair the disk and to work around the FDISK bug. I suppose you
could do that to work around most any bug, in theory. For my own
purposes I'll stick with a quick temporary install of Linux up to fdisk
and use that, thank you. We're talking about simplifying the procedure
not complicating it. By the way, how is the average user supposed to
know how to do this?
--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
******************************
