Linux-Advocacy Digest #419, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! ("none2")
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: What have you done? (dakota)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Which OS is WORST? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (John Travis)
Re: What have you done? ("C")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: What have you done? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped ("Joseph Wong")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:16:10 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, proculous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> system.
a virus needs to spread, if not its not a virus. Linux therefor isnt a
virus. get a clue mate.
> Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this piece
> of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the sun and
> moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux to
> operate correctly.
coz you have no brains?
> Is this what you call a next generation OS?
next generation OS huh? but we're using it now.
> What generation is that? The year 2025?
year 2000, geez, are you really whacked?
> Shitty looking fonts under X windows, Netscape? Netscape sucks under
> Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
use mozilla, opera, konqurer... there are options.
> Security? Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE
> INSTALL...GOOD SHOW!!!!!
Security huh... you're bringing up security after the big ILOVEYOU virus
thing, thats real intelligent.. We dont have have VBS tying Apps
together. think twice, not everyone has mandrake, shit i wouldnt touch it.
I use a mixure of RedHat 6.x and Debian woody.
> Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me down
> a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's and a trek to
> numerous websites for information much of which is either outdated or in
> conflict with the last website I visited.
You still looking for those brains arent you... I guess the doctors mixed
them up with the after birth when u poped out.
> Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
> link...Great show guys..
I see, what you mean,... cause you had a bad experience with Linux,
therefore it must be shit OS. If every Windows user reported every bad
experience I guess know one would be using Windows. Umm that link is there
http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/FAQ/ how about you try some of the mirrors
before complaining ok?
> Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
> Office.
it wasnt an exploit unlike MS's. just a bad config. hey you cant complain,
over %60 web sites run Apache.
> Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
> Networking for example....
we have GUI's for everything, look at freshmeat, gnome and kde for the
appropriate programs
> A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even remotely
> possible under Linux?
When it's setup, to works, and it works good. And thats why Linux works,
it keeps going. so we can brag about uptimes
3:03pm up 172 days, 48 min, 5 users, load average: 0.06, 0.05, 0.03
thats a fileserver/ipmasq/firewall/http and my client.
> Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has pissed
> me of so much with it's archaic style of doing things that I intend to
> let every single person I know the truth about Linux and spread the word
> that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
again, your bad experience means shit, nothing to us, why? cause it works
for us, and can work for anyone else. Sure Linux isnt the best for
newbies, but the GUI's and friendly installs are getting there, not
perfect., but improving. I guess you need to learn a little before rushing
in and installing any *nix.
> It really does suck the big Onion.....
>
> PROCULOUS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: 8 May 2000 22:01:35 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The #! mechanism is built into Unix specifically for supporting scripting
>languages and calling scripts directly. It does not support general data
>files. The file association mechanism in Windows was originally built for
>general data files, i.e. .jpg, .html, .doc, etc. etc. and then later used
>for scripting tools as they were added to windows. This has lead to
>confusion of the terms "open" and "execute".
Later??? I have always had a problem trying to view .bat files
from the very first tools that made this mistaken guess about
what to do when someone clicks on their name.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 8 May 2000 22:06:41 -0500
In article <8f7l5f$3t6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Seem's that here you are saying that it's not the email application's
>fault.
>
>That's the point, it's not. It's the *user's* fault.
But it is a mistake the user would likely not have made if the
mailer (a) made a clear distinction between programs it is
starting that only display attachments as data and those that
give control to the attachment contents, and (b) provided
a way for the user to see the script before executing it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What have you done?
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:18:40 -0700
In article <8f7u5e$pdp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What has your company done to stop further virus contamination
>> to the Microsoft Operating system environment?
>
>We're a Novell shop and run GroupWise. Running MS software is
like
>having unprotected sex.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
Ditto that. Novell 5.1/Lotus Notes 5 rules.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 8 May 2000 22:12:55 -0500
In article <8f7l43$hg3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think the worm/virus would not have been nearly as fast to spread if
>> all those people that opened it had seen a screen full of vbscript.
>> "That's a love letter?? <delete>"
>
>But the point is that means the mailer has to know about the files.
No it doesn't. It only needs to know a list of programs that
are trusted not to give control to the contents of the data
file you hand it. There is no reason for programs that display
graphics/videos/text or play sounds to ever do anything different
regardless of the data file you give it. It doesn't need to know
anything about the file itself, just that special treatment
is required for any program not known to be safe.
>Currently, if you "launch" an attachment, the mailer just hands the file off
>to the shell (explorer) saying "the user wants to open this". Explorer then
>performs the default action on the file (eg for a jpeg it would fir eup some
>viewer program and pass it the file). For fairly obvious reasons, the
>default action when you activate a script is to run it.
And the results are predictable.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 03:12:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
the shittter wrote:
> Linux of course....It sucks so bad, has no usable applications
Err, umm, freshmeat.net makes you a liar.
> and is
> truely a nostaglic trip back into how computing was done in the 1970's
> Green screen city dude.....
Rather a green screen than a blue one.
> In short, we are not interested...
Who is "we"? You and the voices inside your head?
> Take your shit operating system somewhere else.
Certainly. It doesn't want you either.
> Windows rulllezzz dude's.....And don't you forget it!!!!
Your Windoze speelchekker iz b0rken, should be "rules". And I won't
forget you; you've put forth one of the best informed and certainly one
of the most eloquent defenses for Microsoft on behalf of its extremely
literate user base that I've yet seen.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:58:39 -0500
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> The Cat wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Aol is the ultitmate virus. Those CD's keep replicating in my mailbox.
> >
> > BTW that was not me..
> >
> > TheCat (Steve)
> >
> > "Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
>
> I long for the good old days when they sent floppy disks in the mail. At
> least those I could use as free blank disks. Those CDs just get tossed in
> the garbage.
>
> Gary
If only they would send that crap on a CDRW...
jt
------------------------------
Reply-To: "C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 14:01:23 +1000
And running groupwise is like having unprotected sex with a goat!!!!!.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8f7u5e$pdp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What has your company done to stop further virus contamination
> > to the Microsoft Operating system environment?
>
> We're a Novell shop and run GroupWise. Running MS software is like
> having unprotected sex.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 04:10:57 GMT
On Tue, 9 May 2000 10:20:13 +1000,
Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I don't understand how you can say this. The app must be able to find
>> >> out what kind of file it is because it ends up running it. If it were
>> >> just a text file, it would open it up in notepad, no, it must have the
>> >> facilities to "run" it. All an app needs to do is make a few registry
>> >> calls.
>> >
>> >The email program doesn't know anything about the type of application.
>It
>> >just passes the file to the shell, and the shell knows what associations
>are
>> >set up. Even so, the shell doesn't know what kind of app it is either,
>> >since it's just doing what the user set it up to do. It's like a typist
>> >that types 150 words a minute. They just copy what they read and don't
>> >interpret it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Seem's that here you are saying that it's not the email application's
>fault.
>
>That's the point, it's not. It's the *user's* fault.
The user didn't set it up, M$ did. The user is a clueless newbie who
just bought his computer a couple of months ago to play Quake III
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 04:12:01 GMT
On 05/08/2000 at 12:40 PM,
Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Your understanding of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain,
> > and Japan
> "One of these things just doesn't belong here; one of these things just
> doesn't belong. Can you guess which thing just doesn't belong here by
> the time I finish my song?"
> Mexico isn't exactly one of the G7. Bob, can you name some more of the
> G7 nations?
I never made any reference to the G7. I only mentioned economies with
which I have personal knowledge.
BTW, the G7 comprises the US, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany,
Japan, and
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 04:13:41 GMT
On 05/08/2000 at 12:25 PM,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> (Two bucks says Bob either ignores the above post or responds with more
> or less what I just said.)
I will ignore anything eminating from the sewer called Cornell. It is the
National Enquirer of higher education.
Being a Cornell graduate just got a prospective member of our country club
blackballed. That's what we think of you slime.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 04:12:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8f7u5e$pdp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What has your company done to stop further virus contamination
> >> to the Microsoft Operating system environment?
> >
> >We're a Novell shop and run GroupWise. Running MS software is
> like
> >having unprotected sex.
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
> >
> >
> Ditto that. Novell 5.1/Lotus Notes 5 rules.
I gotta lot of happy users here today, including a few who once berated
us for bucking the "status quo" and not going 100% MSFT. S'matter of
fact (not to rub it in, mind you, but...) our head-honcho network admin
is on vacation at Networld+Interop. And we haven't had to page him....
And yeah, Lotus kicks ass now that Domino runs on Linux (Jeez, I never
thought I'd never see the day I'd be defending IBM against Microsoft...)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 04:21:43 GMT
On 05/08/2000 at 08:41 AM,
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Capitalism is moving inexorably towards corporate centralization and has
> been for the last 100 years at least, despite the ravings of US
> libertarian capitalists. Look at the media.
Just because you haven't the intelligence to find alternatives to CBS,
ABC, NBC, and CNN doesn't mean they don't exist. Every evening I have a
choice of 13 different news sources on TV.
I have a choice of 7 daily newspapers published by independent publishers
plus the WSJ, NYT, Newark Star Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer, and
Philadelphia Daily News. Our local convenience stores carry a minimum of
12 papers every day.
If I travel over to Philadelphia, there are at least 4 independent dailys
published in the city plus another half dozen or more in a 35 mile radius
I can name and I don't know all of them by a long shot. I can think of the
Delaware County Times, the Bucks County Courier Post, the Doylestown
Intelligencer, the Pottstown Mercury, the Reading Eagle, and the
Norristown paper whose name just escaped me.
Radio? I can easily receive no fewer than 60 AM or FM stations most of
which are owned by either single station ownership or small group
ownerships.
You have no idea what you are saying.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 00:30:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 09 May 2000 00:37:53 GMT
>On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:26:48 -0700, someone claiming to be Bob May
>wrote:
>
>>I was working for a company that was doing some work for Stac and I
>>can tell you that they were really frosted off when they found out
>>that microcrud had stolen thier idea and recoded it from the code that
>>Stac had provided to them.
>
>You misspelled "that Microsoft had purchased technology from Veritas
>which Veritas had licensed from Stac."
We don't need to know the mechanics of the theft, Roger. It is enough to know
that Stac won a law suit charging Microsoft of stealing their ideas.
Though it is also worth pointing out that, after being found guilty, Microsoft
proceeded to include an only trivially different "bolt on" in DOS that quite
decisively killed any chance a third party had from making money on disk
compression software on an MS OS.
--
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.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 00:36:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 09 May 2000 00:50:03 GMT
>On 05 May 2000 03:09:12 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
[...]
>>MS sells software licenses that allow you to install the software all
>>the new computers you buy?
>
>Yes they do. They call it site licensing, tho. You can even get one
>that covers the home machines of your employees, should you want...
Anything to lock them in. Now MS has your *employer* applying leverage to
force you to use Windows instead of an alternative in order to keep their
licensing at a not-quite-blackmail level.
Just what is the price list for site licensing? And what kind of volume is
necessary? Should we assume that really gigantic corporations will be given
such a deal on this "home machine" tactic that it will be cheaper for them to
provide home systems in addition to office system than it would be to simply
license for office systems?
I know YOU won't understand why that is a despicable monopoly lock-in tactic
and pathetically anti-competitive, but I think maybe others here might. All I
need you to do is admit that it is the case, spare me your insistence that it
makes sense to anyone with a shred of ethics, and post a reference for a site
licensing price list. I'd appreciate it.
--
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: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:51:22 -0700
You avoided that "Stac won their lawsuit". :)
The whole thing became academic anyway with big-big hard drives under
new technology. Anyone compress anymore? None that I know of.
Cheers,
G
Roger wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:26:48 -0700, someone claiming to be Bob May
> wrote:
>
> >I was working for a company that was doing some work for Stac and I
> >can tell you that they were really frosted off when they found out
> >that microcrud had stolen thier idea and recoded it from the code that
> >Stac had provided to them.
>
> You misspelled "that Microsoft had purchased technology from Veritas
> which Veritas had licensed from Stac."
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 00:59:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 09 May 2000 00:56:12 GMT
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:43:33 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
[...]
>>>>I'm sorry, you may feel otherwise, but the semantic difference between these
>>>>two similar phrases, "forced to agree to accept" and "forced to accept", is
>>>>not, in fact, non-existent.
>
>>>Alright, for the purposes of this discussion, the difference is
>>>insignificant.
>
>>"Only on Roger's World." They're my words; I'll determine if the difference
>>is significant, thank you.
>
>Okay -- in the context of this discussion, what useful distinction do
>you draw between the two?
(Am I a masochist or what? I'm actually gonna try to answer this. Lord help
me.)
To be "forced to agree to accept" is obviously distinct from "forced to
accept" by the notable addition of "to agree". See, the standard line for
Microsoft's predatory pre-load contracts is that they are, indeed, contracts.
An "agreement" between to parties, the contract is necessarily assumed to be
"acceptable" to both sides, or else it is unenforceable to begin with.
The act of accepting a contract is not, however, necessarily an act of
"agreement". "Resigned acceptance", "unavoidable acceptance", and
"distrustful acceptance" are all acceptance of the contract. And once the
contract is accepted, the nature of the language causes us to say that they
"agree" to the contract, though in this context that would be inaccurate. All
that we can know is that they accepted the contract. Even if they weren't
forced to accept the contract, they may have been forced to agree to accept
the contract.
This situation, of course, applies to almost all dissatisfied consumers of
Microsoft's products. Just as with the OEM, the end-user is "forced to agree
to accept" the licensing conditions provided by Microsoft. They are not
negotiable in any degree at all. So we simply accept them, we do not agree to
them.
I think most would agree that there is a difference. If not, then maybe they
would be willing to simply accept it.
--
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: "Joseph Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 05:04:37 GMT
Lange, T. (Thomas) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > My OS/2 system certainly became a bit unstable any time I dual booted to
> > win95. That ended when I wiped win95 off it and reinstall os/2.
>
> ... watch out when having any linux HD in your system and trying to
> re-install WinDoze98... spent some time scratching my head this weekend
> due to the penalty M$ gives you when you decide to be free...
>
> Story so far: one HD with W98, plugged in as IDE-0/hda (master on
> IDE-bus A). Another HD with Linux, plugged in as IDE-1/hdb (master on
> IDE-bus B). CDROM as slave on IDE-bus B, CD-RW on SCSI bus.
>
> Defined /swap on /dev/hdb1 as type Linux-native, /boot on /dev/hda1 as
> type DOS, / on /dev/hdb2 as type Linux-native. Access to /dev/hda2 (rest
> of 1st HD) on /data as type UMSDOS because the shared data are on this
> HD-partition, together with W98. Using LILO, everything worked fine -
> dual boot and the full monty.
>
> During the install of a Netscape-Online account W98 falls flat on its
> back and decides to play dead. Reboot results in the computer displaying
> "LI" on the screen. Reboot with Linux start floppy, re-check
> /etc/lilo.conf, re-create /boot/greetings, restart /ect/lilo. Reboot
> Linux, fine. Trying to reboot W98 - bugger. The bl**dy thing doesn't
> come up, even in the so-called "protected mode". Re-boot from Win-CD
> results in the $y$tem complaining about errors while executing VFAT32
> and the well-known message "Invalid command.com. System halted". Time to
> reinstall W98...
>
It seems to me that lilo installed itself onto the windoze MBR in C: I know
because I ran into the same problem when I installed Turbo Linux on my
system. During setup I had the option of installing LILO onto the MBR. I
clicked yes, but after that I ended up with LI... and a hung system. To fix
this there is an undocumented option in the windoze fdisk utility: "/MBR".
First boot into your windows system using your windows system disk then type
"fdisk /MBR" this should restore the MBR back to its original form. This
works for Win95 doesn't work for NT and I'm not sure about Win98.
Conclusion, don't even try to install LILO on your computer unless you
either have a totally blank hard disk or one of the following: DOS or Win95.
One of the main uses of LILO is to do dual booting on computers where there
are more than one OS. But another way you can do this is use the LoadLin.exe
utility. This is a DOS program that allows you to boot into Linux while in
DOS mode, without messing around with the MBR (which is pretty dangerous if
you think about it). With loadlin.exe you use the config.sys file instead.
When Windoze starts up it goes through the config.sys file, but you can
tweak it so it will call loadlin.exe if you pick Linux. You can configure
config.sys into separate sections much like an .INI file. One caveat: some
video cards become confuse because the Windows logo is the first thing
loaded on startup, but you can get around this by typing the Linux "clear"
command when you're in Linux terminal mode. You can even include "clear" in
your .profile file so its called every time you log in.
Joe.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
