Linux-Advocacy Digest #759, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 21:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Packaging Tools (Christopher Browne)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:19:39 -0500
Two comments:
1. According to Gateway, no such model as the Gateway 2600 exists. I also
searched the net for the model number just in case the tech I corresponded
with didn't know what he was talking about, but I could find no mention of a
Gateway 2600.
2. Is T. Max's posting style indicative of his general educational style?
Does he walk up to students or lecture attendees and yell, "BZZZZT! Wrong
answer, numbnuts!"
Just curious.
--doc
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Packaging Tools
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:18:51 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when JEDIDIAH would say:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:56:52 GMT, Christopher Browne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Dr Sinister would say:
>>>Perhaps you meant to say "Install Shield by contrast is fast and easy."
>>
>>Of course, what is more precisely correct is that
>>
>> "InstallShield is, in contrast with downloading tarballs, and then
>> configuring, compiling, and installing them by hand, fast and easy."
>>
>>Which all adds up to an overall useless observation.
>>
>>It makes sense to compare the use of an RPM or dpkg package with the
>>use of an InstallShield package.
>>
>>Of course, this is a .advocacy group, where comparisons are made when
>>people feel like making them, where reason plays little role...
>
> Even the tarbal vs. rpm argument is useful. Tarballs have the
> benefit of being much more flexible with respect to dependencies.
> If you happen to be a minor version behind on some library, a
> recompile can be simpler. Besides, most tarballs are just a matter
> of regurgitating a couple of standard sequences.
>
> ./configure
> make
> make install
>
> These are all fairly descriptive and intuitive (given the
> activity) mnemonics. They should be easy enough to remember
> after the 5th or 10th time.
A major merit of Ports, dpkg, and RPM are that they can be set up to
*not require that the human remember anything.*
I can set up a cron job (or a system configuration tool could do
so...) that goes off and looks for updates from a "trusted" site, and
which automagically installs things without the poor user even needing
to know any mnemonics.
If you want to argue for "./configure; make; make install", I suggest
you bounce that past the people doing BSD Ports work, as they may have
some elaborations to add...
--
Consciousness - that annoying time between naps.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:19:05 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Ronald Cole would say:
>[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? ;)
Nothing in particular.
Of course, it wouldn't make sense to *merely* rewrite it in Modula-3;
it would make *more* sense to do some redesign to take advantage of
the functionality Modula-3 offers.
It's an interesting idea; some of the people that waste time
blathering about redoing Linux in C++ should take a look at the M3
option, and consider actually starting a project rather than merely
blathering about it...
--
I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
