Linux-Advocacy Digest #649, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (JEDIDIAH)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (John Hasler)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Simone Paddock)
Re: ILOVEYOU virus for Linux (attached) ("Rich C")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Tim Kelley)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
PalmOS, Linux, and CodeWarrior ("Wallingford, Ted")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Sean Akers)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R. Tang)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Brian Langenberger)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 01:26:29 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gd4si$23mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've seen X crash an entire machine.
> > My guess is it caused an out of memory situation.
> > Caused by a simple graphic resize in a buggy little KDE app.
>
> > So theory aside, X in reality can crash the entire machine.
>
> In many, many years of dealing with X under linux, bsdi, freebsd,
> openbsd, netbsd, mklinux, hp/ux, solaris, aix and sunos, I have
> never once seen X lock up an entire machine.
>
> Ive seen other locks caused by other things, but not X.
>
> I'm not saying that it cant happen, im saying that there is a
> marked difference between a panic and a frozen console. :)
Not to the person in front of the console, there isn't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:20:23 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 09:18:46 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:56:55 +0200, "Davorin Mestric"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial unix
>>vendors more than microsoft.
>>
>[snip]
>
>Linux is hurting Unix - but not in the way you indicate.
No, more than likely the perception that you can get a Quad Xeon
that can replace a Sun Enterprise Ultrasparc is what is 'hurting
Linux'. Linux just happens to be taking the place that NT would
try to push itself into.
>
>I've administered in excess of 10 flavours of Unix since 1992. All of
>these have been rock solid with little or no problems. Linux simply
>does not achieve these sorts of reliability and stability levels.
Odd then that it's making Commercial Unix installations
drop like flies.
>
>Linux is creating a generation of programmers who will believe they
>must run VMS if they want a rock solid operating system.
VMS is still more robust than the Commercial Unixen. VMS will
take server loads that HP/UX and Irix and SunOS melt under.
Unix is thrown together well but it's still thrown together.
>
>Administrators should think twice before compromising their systems by
>introducing a Linux box.
>
The VMS remarks are a matter of firsthand experience: RDBMS QA.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:17:35 GMT
Rich Steiner writes:
> The current system seems to work well.
How do you know? How many useful bug reports are not being filed?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: 23 May 2000 15:24:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8gd4si$23mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I've seen X crash an entire machine.
>> > My guess is it caused an out of memory situation.
>> > Caused by a simple graphic resize in a buggy little KDE app.
>>
>> > So theory aside, X in reality can crash the entire machine.
>>
>> In many, many years of dealing with X under linux, bsdi, freebsd,
>> openbsd, netbsd, mklinux, hp/ux, solaris, aix and sunos, I have
>> never once seen X lock up an entire machine.
>>
>> Ive seen other locks caused by other things, but not X.
>>
>> I'm not saying that it cant happen, im saying that there is a
>> marked difference between a panic and a frozen console. :)
> Not to the person in front of the console, there isn't.
If the person in front of the console is an idiot, to be sure-
you are correct.
However, if that person has a functioning bit of grey matter
somewhere in their head, and they really, really dont want to
have to power cycle the machine, they do not have to. There
are alternatives.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 06:47:49 -0400
In <KnnW4.37627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/23/00 Mark
Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> Appeal courts should not be looking at past decisions of judges
>>> to decide whether to overturn.
>>
>> Yeah. We wouldn't want them setting a "prescedent" for such actions of
>> looking back on former cases, now would we?
>No, they should evaluate based on merit decided on a case-by-case basis.
If this is what you want, you shouldn't be living here. Law doesn't work this
way, never has, never will.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:12:47 GMT
On 05/23/2000 at 02:35 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
> Because the ramblings of a lunatic make alot of people uncomfortable.
You are quite correct. The ramblings you post here do make many people
uncomfortable. I am glad you are back on your medication and realize you
are a lunatic when you stop taking it.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 01:44:28 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ge7sa$ur6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not saying that it cant happen, im saying that there is a
> >> marked difference between a panic and a frozen console. :)
>
> > Not to the person in front of the console, there isn't.
>
> If the person in front of the console is an idiot, to be sure-
> you are correct.
No, if the person in front of the machine is unable to tell the difference
between a locked console and a hung machine and then fix it. I'd say that
encompasses about 99% of computer users, being conservative.
>From the end user's perspective, on an end-user machine, a hung console is
the same as a system crash. Not only because the machine looks and acts
dead, but because if they "fix" the problem by killing the X server then
they also most likely lose all the data they were working on anyway.
> However, if that person has a functioning bit of grey matter
> somewhere in their head, and they really, really dont want to
> have to power cycle the machine, they do not have to. There
> are alternatives.
Sure, they can walk down the hallway, find another machine, kick the person
using it off for a few minutes to ping, telnet etc and *maybe* successfully
kill the hung process, but 99% of the time it would just be quicker to
reboot and have the same end result. Or they can harass the admin and wait
while he tries to fix it, again with most likely the same end result.
------------------------------
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, 23 May 2000 15:13:49 GMT
On 05/23/2000 at 02:33 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
> Much as youd like to think otherwise, bob, you actually arent helping
> anyone here. You're simply actively appearing to be a fucking
> lunatic.
What a proven psychotic like you who defends a criminal organization
thinks matter not a whit to me.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:39:35 GMT
On 23 May 2000 08:34:56 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:12:59 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Go read the long description by an Open Source Advocate about the
>> >interesting improvements in Windows 2000 that he claims makes it faster
>> >than NT.
>> >
>> >Pete
>>
>> Oh I agree that W2K is 'slightly' faster than NT4. It seems to access
>> VM more efficiently and task switching seems to be a bit better as
>> well but compared with Linux or any Unix system, W2K multi-tasking
>> sucks.
>
>Hmmm. Windows 2000 seems *much* slower on a 64MB machine than NT4
>did.
No version of any microsoft software has ever been as fast as the previous
version.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simone Paddock)
Subject: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:42:18 GMT
For whatever reason, a great many Linux and UNIX
users spend a lot more time working with Windows
than they might like, or like to admit.
As Tim O'Reilly says in "Windows by Day, Linux by Night ":
"...because we don't admit to our use of Windows, because
it's a guilty secret, we don't spend the kind of time learning
how to get the most out of the system. We do what we have
to, and then go home, to where we feel more comfortable.
That changed for me a year and a half ago."
Find out why and how at:
http://windows.oreilly.com/news/byday_0500.html
The first 1000 people who read Tim's article get a free book.
Simone Paddock
O'Reilly & Associates
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.oreilly.com
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ILOVEYOU virus for Linux (attached)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:46:30 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rich Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
> >cal wrote:
> >
> >> > This virus works on the honor system. Please delete a
> >> > bunch of JPG and MP3 files from your system and
> >> > forward this message to all your contacts.
> >
> >Ha! My trusty antivirus software kicked in when you didn't say,
> >
> >"Simon Says............"
>
> I'll fix that.
>
> Simon says "This virus works on the honor system. Please delete
> a bunch of JPG and MP3 files from your system and forward this
> message to all your contacts."
>
> Muahahahaha!
>
> --
> Microsoft Windows. Beyond crappy. Beyond belief.
> Microsoft Windows. It could be worse, but it'll take time.
> Microsoft Windows. The problem for your problem.
Oh, NOOOO! A self-mutating-honor-system virus! The WORST kind!
*clickety-click*
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Where did all my JPG and MP3 files go?!?!
===== Original Message =====
From: "Rich C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: ILOVEYOU virus for Linux (attached)
> This virus works on the honor system. Please delete a
> bunch of JPG and MP3 files from your system and
> forward this message to all your contacts.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:57:57 -0500
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> ...the only catch with this is the $$$'s. It costs good
> money to be up to date with Windows, unless you pirate.
And that is what every windows user I know does.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 23 May 2000 10:58:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>' >For myself, if I am going to produce free software, I want it to be
>' >GPL. I don't want my work to be used in proprietary software unless I
>' >get paid for it.
>'
>' This doesn't make a bit of sense from a user's perspective. You
>' are saying that I can use the code only as long as it isn't linked
>' to something else that I might happen to need that is under
>' someone else's control. I don't think the internet would exist
>' as we know it today had it not been for the reference BSD code
>' that does allow use in proprietary works as well as additional
>' free ones.
>
>It makes no difference to an end user what the source license is.
It does make a difference when it makes it impossible to use.
>The Regents of University of California, Berkley choose their
>license. I get to choose mine.
I'm not arguing about your right to do whatever you want, I
am just saying that I don't understand what motivates you
to create a situation where I can download code, have it
on my machine and use it in any way I want, but only in
cases where I can do the linking myself. If another needed
component is controlled by someone else with an equal
right to choose their license, I won't be able to obtain
and use the combination together.
>If you want something that makes no sense, go to an NT box and look at
>the file \\WINNT\System32\etc\SERVICES. You will see a document from
>IANA that Microsoft has slapped their copyright on. They didn't
>change a single character in the file. Tell me that makes sense.
Lots of people make unenforcable claims but I don't want to take
that approach with the GPL. It is just that sanity I question.
Unless there really is a case for keeping it from competing
with commercial licensing of the same code (like ghostscript),
why give something away with strings attached that prohibit
a lot of uses?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Wallingford, Ted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PalmOS, Linux, and CodeWarrior
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:28:14 -0400
Is there anybody out there developing apps for PalmOS using Linux and/or
CodeWarrior?
Tips on doing so would be helpful...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 23 May 2000 11:03:23 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Then again, InstallSheild, possibly the best installer in Windows
>land, is even worse. Go figure.
>
>Do people really have trouble with ./configure, make, make install?
>It has _never_ been a problem for me. Maybe I am just lucky. Even
>though I changed my compiler, libc, and libtools.
Given a thousand packages, how long does it take you to be sure
you have the latest version of each installed using this
technique? How long does it take to figure out what is missing
when the linker can't resolve a symbol?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:17:45 +0100
On 23 May 2000 08:34:56 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hmmm. Windows 2000 seems *much* slower on a 64MB machine than NT4
>did.
Perhaps it's quicker on my work machine due to it having 128Mb. It's
not a big difference though and still a lot slower than my similarly
specc'd Linux box.
Sean.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:25:01 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 15:42:18 GMT, Simone Paddock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>For whatever reason, a great many Linux and UNIX
>users spend a lot more time working with Windows
>than they might like, or like to admit.
>
>As Tim O'Reilly says in "Windows by Day, Linux by Night ":
>"...because we don't admit to our use of Windows, because
>it's a guilty secret, we don't spend the kind of time learning
>how to get the most out of the system. We do what we have
>to, and then go home, to where we feel more comfortable.
>That changed for me a year and a half ago."
>
>Find out why and how at:
>http://windows.oreilly.com/news/byday_0500.html
>
> The first 1000 people who read Tim's article get a free book.
Don't bother. The free book is "windows 98 in a nutshell."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:24:42 GMT
On 23 May 2000 11:03:23 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Then again, InstallSheild, possibly the best installer in Windows
>>land, is even worse. Go figure.
>>
>>Do people really have trouble with ./configure, make, make install?
>>It has _never_ been a problem for me. Maybe I am just lucky. Even
>>though I changed my compiler, libc, and libtools.
>
>Given a thousand packages, how long does it take you to be sure
>you have the latest version of each installed using this
>technique? How long does it take to figure out what is missing
>when the linker can't resolve a symbol?
Typically the configure script should tell you. That's what
it's there for. All a binary package buys you is the ability
to easily force install a whole bunch of stuff at once. In
the case of RPM, one is specifically abusing the tool in order
to get it to work in a more convenient fashion.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Tang)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 23 May 2000 16:11:10 GMT
In article <yEiW4.2672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8gc3dh$qt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and
>justice,
>> >which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know they'll
>win.
>>
>> Ummmm....lemmme guess...another newsgroup.lawyer, right?
>
>The appeals court has overturned *EVERY* decision this judge has made
>against MS in the past. A normal person might wonder how an objective
>jurist might get that kind of record.
An objective person would look at the facts of this case. As you
would say, "Irrelevant."
>
>> Some points to consider:
>>
>> A) Appeals courts generally focus on the findings of law, but
>> leave the finding of facts alone. Microsoft supporters should not depend
>> on reversal by the appelate court on the findings of fact, because it
>> won't happen. Most probable would be a moderation of remedies based on the
>> findings of law, but not an outright reversal.
>
>The keyword there is generally. The fact that the judges findings of fact
>are almost word for word taken from the governments filings, and has very
>easily proven falsehoods in it could very well sway an appeals or supreme
>court into deciding that the findings of fact were biased. They won't
>discover their own facts, but if they overturn the basis of the findings of
>law, then the findings of law become irrelevant.
Given your own lack of intellectual integrity concerning this
case, I can hardly take your argument seriously. Given Microsoft's
slipshod defense (and that's HARDLY in doubt), I have little doubt that
the findings of fact will be overturned.
>> B) Jackson was Republican appointee, rather friendly to business.
>
>Irrelevant.
But not to the above argument I was responding to.
>
>> C) Anyone who calls the tobacco cases marginally succuessful
>> isnt't really on the same planet.
>
>The tobacco cases are about greed and getting governors re-elected and
>attorney generals elected governor. Coincidentally, the majority of state
>Attorneys General in the case were running for governor at the time they
>filed the case. Can anyone say "publicity"?
Don't evade the point. And certainly not true for at least some of
the lead litigators. Ain't no such animal as a Governor Gregoire.
--
-Roger Tang, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: 23 May 2000 16:41:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip>
:>Find out why and how at:
:>http://windows.oreilly.com/news/byday_0500.html
:>
:> The first 1000 people who read Tim's article get a free book.
: Don't bother. The free book is "windows 98 in a nutshell."
That's the whole point. It's basically a book to help UNIX
users navigate the painful unpleasantries of Windows.
I'm looking forward to paging through my free copy in a week
or two. It looks interesting.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:40:02 -0500
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Ross would say:
> >So theory aside, X in reality can crash the entire machine.
>
> I blame it on the video hardware. You can send instructions to the
> video card that will cause it to dump data pretty arbitrarily _anywhere_
> in system memory, outside the control of the CPU.
Hrmm.. nope. Sounds good, but nope. I've installed RH Linux (yes, I know
RH != (necessarily) Linux, but it uses X11R6 XFree86) on several machines
and have seen X puke on all of them. They all have varying display hardware
from Matrox, to Cirrus Logic, to Chips and Technologies, etc. The odd thing
is, it crashes seemingly unprovoked. I will start X, be browsing the file
system, fire up an xterm (note that Netscape has not be allowed to defile
the system at this point), and boom, locks up. Numlock works, mouse moves,
but nothing else. I attempt to switch terminals using the CTRL+ALT+F(x)
to no avail.
Holding down the power button for ~5 seconds seems to be the only way to
regain control. Of course, then you must endure the 1-3hour fsck that
is required because of ext2's crappy crash recovery, only to find out
some critical system file was hosed and I have to reinstall from scratch.
How pleasant.
> If memory serves, the Amiga had two "kinds" of memory, one being called
> "chip RAM," which was a portion of memory that was accessible by the
> graphics harware; other RAM did not exist as far as the GPU was
> concerned.
>
> If PC video cards could be forced to only look at certain "safe" portions
> of memory, then systems could be made robust. When they can't, all the
> reliability you can add to the CPU is of no avail if the video card is
> against you...
Yes, video cards drivers (not the hardware, just the drivers in most cases)
have major problems quite often and result in instabilities.
In the X case I mentioned above, it sure sounds like a video driver bug,
but also, I've seen similar behavior in every default-install RH Linux 6.0
and 6.1 install I've ever done (which is around a dozen or so). I find it
hard to believe that with all those different cards, the drivers were buggy.
The only other things I can think of are a.) buggy X windows code b.) buggy
code between video driver + X windows + linux c.) Duh! It's open source, just
go write your own windowing system and display driver.
Of course, I'm stupid, why didn't I think of c.) before! I'll get right on
that..
-Chad
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
> Know the list of "large, chronic problems". If there is any problem
> with the window system, blame it on the activity system. Any lack of
> user functionality should be attributed to the lack of a command
> processor. A suprisingly large number of people will believe that you
> have thought in depth about the issue to which you are alluding when you
> do.
> -- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
