Linux-Advocacy Digest #753, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 14:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Brian Langenberger)
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... (Ron Reeder)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Brian Langenberger)
Re: US politics ("DGF")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Ronald Cole)
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Timothy J. Lee)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Tim Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:31:17 -0500
Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b5gqg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, since you don't call partitioning/formatting the disk and
> installing drivers part of "installing an OS" I guess not.
With Windows installs, you don't _have_ to partition. I know people who
have installed Windows on a system with no OS who couldn't even define
partitioning, really.
> So maybe I
> should just call it a "Procedure Guaranteed to Get My Computer to Work
> Again After Windows Corrupts It."
Well, "Procedure that will probably make Norm's computer work as he wants it
to while taking a score of precautions that aren't necessary technically to
install an OS" would be good :-)
> 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.
Yes, which is one of the things that makes Linux installation more difficult
for most newbies.
> >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.
I did. The reply I received is posted in an earlier post.
> 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.
So, next time you do it give me a call :-)
> 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'd wait and pass judgment on that until we go through it.
> I have spent enough
> time with Gateway, who have more experience than you with this
> particular hardware/OS combination.
True, but the procedure they emailed to me sounds more realistic.
> >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.
My point was just that if you've ever installed with less than the procedure
you mentioned (which I gathered _had_ to be the case since you mentioned
that you compiled the procedure after many instances) then the procedure you
mentioned wasn't _all_ necessary to install Windows. After all, you'd
installed Windows with less than it yourself.
> >> >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,
Okay, hold on a second here. I was giving the general procedure for
_installing Windows_. You just now say "it omits everything except the
basic Win95 installation." Well, if it doesn't omit the basic Win95
installation, and that's what I'm relaying, how is it that it is completely
incorrect for installing Windows?
> 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.
Oh. Okay then :-)
> >> "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.
Clicking buttons isn't that difficult to me. I can do it while chatting, re
ading a book or magazine, relaxing with a cup of coffee, etc.
It's certainly a lot easier than a lot of other things I do with computers
and electronics.
And you have to do it with Linux installs, too. I don't mind it there,
either, and I actually prefer the Red Hat GUI install to the Windows
install.
> >> 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?
I don't know enough about that to answer you effectively. I suppose
Microsoft techs had some reason for it, just as NT took 3 boot floppies
before it accessed the CD, but I don't know why, exactly. I've only
installed Win2K on about 15 machines so far and haven't had time in any of
those cases to play around with it much yet (note to self: hmm . . . cuz I
was spending too much time writing usenet posts?), so I don't know that
process as well.
> Having to carry around (and not misplace) 3 extra diskettes is a
> nuisance for the user.
Well, I have a couple disk cases (floppies and CD-ROMS) that I carry
everywhere, but if I were to forget the floppies, it's easy to make the boot
disks if you can access a Windows or DOS system that can read the CD-ROM.
>Or are you saying that the driver needed just to
> access the CD-ROM has grown to 5.6 MB in size in Win2K?
I don't think that is the case.
> You'll have to explain the nature of what you do.
As far as computers go, I'm a developer primarily now, but in the past I've
had various system administrator kinds of jobs.
I still enjoy doing a lot of the networking and sysad stuff, so I also do
consulting on that end, in some cases for former employers.
>You say you've run
> FDISK 1500 times.
Well, I don't have a tally, but that's an approximate guess, yeah.
> 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.
It includes more reinstalls on old hard drives than installs on new hard
drives.
>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.
fdisking is necessary if you want to wipe everything out, reformat and
reinstall manually for instance. It isn't necessary for a user if they
reinstall from rescue disks, or if they reinstall the OS but nothing else,
etc.
When I reinstall, I fdisk, sure. You don't _have_ to fdisk in many
situations, though, and for someone who isn't a techhead--like say my sister
calls me on the phone and wants to start with a "clean slate," I'll tell her
to throw the rescue disk in and follow the simple instructions.
> >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.
Someone else pointed out that I was a bit silly there. I agree.
> >(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.
Gateway didn't give me a clear answer on that when I emailed them either.
The procedure they sent me did go through driver installs after the OS
install . . . I suppose I should have emailed them back again to ask why
they don't just have this stuff on a rescue disk.
> >> 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.
That was clearer after Gateway sent me their walk-through.
> >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:
You said you had Win95B (OSR2), right? I wonder why they didn't use FAT32
(or FAT32x if your hard drive is over 8 GB). No need to answer, I'm just
curious.
> 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 agree that partitioning is a good idea. I just didn't see why it was
necessary.
To me, stating "this is what you have to do to install Windows" implies
"this is the minimum set of procedures you need to go through to install
Windows."
--doc
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Date: 22 Mar 2000 18:30:31 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
:>Perhaps pdf would be even better. dvipdfm works great in converting
:>my nice dvi files into equally nice pdf ones that should work
:>just about anywhere. It's not like these guys need to *edit* my
:>resume. But give me a good open standard over Word any day...
: a) Yes they will want to edit it.
: b) They will whine if it's in a readable format not msword.
:
: Just use RTF, most of them won't be saavy enough to notice
: a difference.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Maybe I should start my own company making:
"Database-driven Business-to-business e-commerce solutions for the
i-enterprise"
and try and make a lot of money before anyone tries to figure out
WTF all those stupid buzzwords mean. Then I wouldn't have to deal
with resumes anymore.
------------------------------
From: Ron Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:30:40 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) wrote:
> > >M$ is aboard the UNIX camp. A number of years they created a
> > UNIX like OS
> > >called XENIX. But it no doubt sucks just as bad as win.
> >
> > They didnt create it... they bought it off SCO.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ciaran
>
> El wrongo. The first version of Xenix, 2.3, was released in 1980 by
> Microsoft. XENIX 3.0, released in 1983 by Microsoft, included features
> from 4.1BSD and AT&T's System III. The last Microsoft version was 5.0.
>
> Microsoft then sold it to SCO. SCO modified Xenix 5.0 which then became
> SCO Server.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
This is interesting... I've got a book "Xenix at work" by Microsoft Press.
Edited by Joanne Woodcock and Michael Halvorson (No authors - Kind of like the
OS)
Considering the time frame - I refuse to believe that MS wrote this thing in
House...
MS couldn't even write DOS at the time... They bought it from somewhere - I'd
bet my
life on it.
The book just says that: "Microsoft Announced, in 1980 a faster smoother,
trimmer verion of UNIX."
It doesn't say if the early version used 8080 or 8086 arch. comp. The 8086
still didn't support protected mode execution. So, this still, could not have
been a real OS, in the sense that an OS controls access to resources (Memory,
files, CPU, etc.).
There is one cute quote though (from the intro. pg 11):
As other operating systems evolve, they will begin to emulate more of the UNIX
features than they do now.
As in any commercial environment, it's the nature of the beast to turn toward
whatever is working best.
But, XENIX - your XENIX - is already a faithful implementation of UNIX, in form,
format, and command.
For the multiuser, multitasking environment, tommorrow is here today.
XENIX is now what most other operating systems will become.
And now has always been better than later.
Presumeably copyright MS - 1986.
--
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Ron Reeder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Denver Technical Support | Phone: (303) 389-4408 |
| Western Geophysical Company | Fax: (303) 595-0667 |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 18:40:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Grant Edwards <grant@nowhere.> wrote:
<snip>
: Last time around, I sent mine out in PDF (which I generated w/
: TeX and ghostscript). I figured I didn't really want to work
: someplace where people couldn't figure out what to do with a
: PDF file. (And yes, there are such places employing software
: engineers.)
(slightly OT)
You might want to try dvipdfm instead of ghostscript. That
way you can simply go:
.tex -> .dvi -> .pdf
instead of:
.tex -> .dvi -> .ps -> .pdf
dvipdfm keeps the fonts looking nice onscreen, whereas making
intermediate Postscript tends to result in jaggy fonts
(tho the printouts look as good as ever) because of the
scaled-down bitmapped-ness of them.
There's also pdfTeX, but I'd much rather have dvis for
onscreen previewing.
------------------------------
From: "DGF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:47:37 -0500
Fine whatever. This is not the place for this anyway. I thought you said
you were a liberal not a "moderate". Now you say you choose moderation. If
you are a "moderate" then none of that applies to you. Believe whatever you
will the fact is that Liberalism as a movement is totalitarian and is taking
away my freedoms. I resent liberals taking away my freedom. Moderates are
very different from liberals. They sometimes support certain liberal
policies and sometimes do not. I do not see moderates as a threat to
freedom.
I am not truly "conservative" in the strict sense of the word. I support
many things that will bring about change. That's what a consevative is
supposed to be, someone who wants the status quo. Conservatives want to
reform social security while I want to eliminate it. Liberals want to leave
it untouched as a sacred cow. Neither am I libertarian. A libertarian
agrees on eliminating social security but I may disagree with them on other
issues.
So far as Liberals supporting anti-discrimination laws you are again
deluding yourself. They support certain anti-discrimination laws. But they
also support laws that discriminate against people by race or sex. I have
yet to see any liberal ask for an end to affirmative action or political
correctness. I have never seen a single liberal ask for an end to political
correctness or an end to political discrimination against non-liberals. If
a liberal ever supports either of those things I will agree with them. At
least at the present in the year 2000 it is liberals that support
discriminatory laws and policies. And it is the present in the year 2000
that I care about. My beef is with liberals not moderates.
------------------------------
From: Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 10:21:29 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> Would you rather we rewrite the kernel in Fortran or COBOL? :-)
What's wrong with Modula-3? ;)
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy J. Lee)
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Date: 22 Mar 2000 19:06:14 GMT
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|This one recruiter was really whiney: "But I don't _LIKE_ resumes in
|text format". I guess saying "You'll take it and like it" isn't an
|option.
It is, if you are in an employees' job market.
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:46:07 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > If winnt was not hindered by having to be
> > backward compatible with other windows apps (a purely economic
> > focus on MS' part),
>
> Yes, I'm sure the idea of supporting their existing userbase never entered
> into the issue.
that is correct. They had a poorly designed system, and made a
concsious decision to stick with it and include much of it in
NT. How many times do I have to say it? Or will you just keep
saying "No it isn't"?
Yes, I am saying that with NT they probably would've done better
to break all compatibility start from scratch. At the time
backwards compatibility wasn't nearly as big an issue as it is
now, they had virtually no competition in '92. The problem with
this is that the issue just gets worse and worse.
> > they could've used a sensible multi-user
> > interface and filesystem standard, as unix has.
>
> Ahh, so it's the "it's not Unix so it's wrong" argument again ?
Nope. I don't care if they did it the unix way or not. I'm
using unix as an example of a well design multi-user system
because it's the only one I'm familiar with. I'm sure there are
others.
> > > "Like 9x" in what way, precisely ?
> >
> > you mean you can't tell?
>
> No. Perhaps in the great wisdom you believe you're blessed with you can
> enlighten me ?
OK. Set two computers up side by side, one with NT, and one with
9x. Then stare at them for a while. Get it?
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
