Linux-Advocacy Digest #703, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Jan Knutar)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: democracy? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: You have never seen Linux like this ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (EdWIN)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:53:56 -0400
On Fri, 26 May 2000 18:07:47 GMT, wallyb6@nospam (Wally Bass) wrote:
>>
>>... pliability ... is the very nature of (software). That which
>>Mr. Jackson is calling "illegal tying" in this case is nothing
>>less than the lifeblood of the software business. All software,
>>in all application categories, survives by gradually absorbing
>>functionality that previously resided elsewhere. That's why word
>>processors have grown spell checkers, drawing tools, and file
>>managers. That's why spreadsheets have grown word processing and
>>graphics features. That's why the Java framework started out
>>bare-bones and is now a rich API for everything from database
>>access to 3D graphics. Software *MUST* adapt with the times and
>>absorb new capabilities; otherwise it dies. To say that a
>>software product can no longer evolve this way is to kill it,
>>plain and simple. But to say that the most important software
>>product (Windows) cannot adapt to the most important
>>technological trend in decades (Internet/Web) is outright
>>insanity.
>
>So what is this? Proof by irrelevant example?
>
We'll see :-)
>
>Word processors "grow" spell checkers, drawing tools, and file
>managers because those functions are closely related to what a
>word processor does, namely produce and manage documents. Java
>grows more API's because that is the nature of what programming
>languages do... provide a platform for programmers to implement
>whatever they chose to implement.
>
OK so far...
>
>That does not much resemble the relationship between operating
>systems and internet browsers.
>
All right, stop right there. Don't even get me started on these
ridiculous attempts to define what an OS is and what it should and
should not do. The academic definition of "OS" is totally irrelevant
here. We're talking about the marketing term. And just like that of
"word processor", the marketing meaning of "OS" has changed over the
years, and must be allowed to continue changing. If you think
otherwise, try putting an OS in the academic sense (a kernel and
nothing else) into a shrinkwrap box and see how many copies you sell.
I submit that the rest of your argument falls apart, because it's
based entirely on this misguided notion of yours that Windows must
embody only the academic definition of the term "operating system".
>
>Let me offer some observations about the PC hardware marketplace.
>The first hard disk that I bought cost me $1K and held 10MB. Now
>I buy one that holds 10GB for $100. The first PC I bought, with a
>4.7MHz clock and a 1 byte data path (which I bought from another
>monopoly called IBM, by the way) cost me $3K. Now I buy one that
>is about 1000 times faster and has 1000 times more memory for
>$300.
>
OK.
>
>Now lets look at operating systems. I used to buy my operating
>system for $60, and it took about 3 seconds to boot up. Now I buy
>W2K for $300, and it takes 3 minutes to boot on my system which
>is 1000 times faster than the one where my old OS would boot in 3
>seconds. On top of that, it fills up 500MB of my disk, largely
>with redundant junk that I don't want, which costs me
>significantly in time every time I (a) back up, (b) do operating
>system upgrades/maintenance, or (c) have reason to investigate
>the operating system structure for some reason.
>
What does any of this prove? Sometimes it just comes down to "you
can't always get what you want". Microsoft believes that the
configuration they provide suits some section of the market. It is
their product to design as they wish. If anything, the amount of work
they've put into it shows that they're *NOT* just resting on their
laurels as is so typical of real monopolies.
You know, I just love the look of a Jaguar sedan. I think it's
absolutely gorgeous. I can't afford a Jaguar, but I love the look so
much that I wouldn't mind owning a Jaguar body on top of an
OldsmoBuick frame. Unfortunately, nobody makes such a beast, and
because I'm neither mechanically inclined nor rich enough to pay for a
custom job, I have to settle for less than my ideal car. Should I be
whining to the DoJ like you are?
>
>In short, while most every area of this business where there is
>competition, prices have gone down (typically by an order of
>magnitude) and performance has gone up (typically by 3 orders of
>magnitute). In the (monopolistic) operating system marketplace,
>the trends not only haven't kept pace, they have gone in the
>opposite direction.
>
You're out of your mind. The price of operating systems has remained
roughly the same, while their power and functionality has skyrocketed.
What the hell is wrong with that?
>
>Lawyers often use character assassination as a technique for
>winning cases, but at least they do it because they are paid to
>win, and they understand what they are doing and why they are
>doing it. But argument by character assassination in this arena,
>by people who would wish to have others believe that they are
>seeking the truth, is simple intellectual dishonesty. Joel
>Kline is merely doing his job (and, I not aware of any
>character assassination that he has engaged in).
>
You're on the wrong track here, Wally. I didn't call Joel Klein an
asshole to prove anything. It was just an observation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Knutar)
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: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:52:48 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 16:42:48 -0700, "Jack Kessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>to buy full hardware modems which are more expensive, harder to set up and
>are becoming harder to find.
Eh? Harder to setup?
When I installed my modem in win, I needed a bunch of driver diskettes to
get it to work.
I can't even remember installing the modem in Linux, all I can remember was
that I entered the phonenumber to my ISP, my name, password and the DNS
servers, and it worked. I think I saw a box saying something like "serching
for modem" the first time I ran it, but I'm not sure.
--
JK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
Any attempt to stretch fuel is guaranteed to increase headwind.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 26 May 2000 19:08:50 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 12:52:48 GMT, Jan Knutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 May 2000 16:42:48 -0700, "Jack Kessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>to buy full hardware modems which are more expensive, harder to set up and
>>are becoming harder to find.
>
>Eh? Harder to setup?
Quite. My Phoebe hardware ISA modem came with very reasonable
defaults: no-pnp, com2. In this configuration I was able to slap it in
and use it immediately.
>
>When I installed my modem in win, I needed a bunch of driver diskettes to
>get it to work.
>
>I can't even remember installing the modem in Linux, all I can remember was
>that I entered the phonenumber to my ISP, my name, password and the DNS
>servers, and it worked. I think I saw a box saying something like "serching
>for modem" the first time I ran it, but I'm not sure.
One should never need to 'install' a modem. A real modem is as
simple as a device gets when it comes to compatibility.
(com2+ XT legacy gibberish notwithstanding of course)
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:16:18 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your reasoning is flawed. Not everyone who installs linux on a pc
platform is a candidate for a commercial unix distro. Since there is no
necessary connection between being a candidate for linux and a candidate
for commercial unix, your claim that every installation of linux hurts
commercial unix vendors is not valid.
OTOH, linux is a vehicle for learning unix commands and application
development. More people using linux means more people with the
technical skillset to administer systems and develop applications for
users on unix. That benefits all unix vendors, all unix shops, and
hurts no one but companies selling non-unix OS's.
Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> i did not indicate a way it is damaging other unix vendors, but i'll
> gladly do it. :)
>
> each linux box instead of Solaris means less money goes to Sun. this
> lowers Sun's profit margins. this hurts the weaker unix vendors the most,
> so they go down first. then their customers migrate to the stronger
> leaders, so you see a temporary increase in the Sun's market share.
>
> but since the whole market is growing, the effects could be somewhat
> hidden. but still the facts is that each linux installed means less money
> for other unix vendors.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Fri, 26 May 2000 19:26:31 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:53:56 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 18:07:47 GMT, wallyb6@nospam (Wally Bass) wrote:
[deletia]
>OK so far...
>
>>
>>That does not much resemble the relationship between operating
>>systems and internet browsers.
>>
>
>All right, stop right there. Don't even get me started on these
>ridiculous attempts to define what an OS is and what it should and
>should not do. The academic definition of "OS" is totally irrelevant
Oh sure, ignore the point of view of those that have
to actually build and maintain these systems that are now to
be driven by the incompetent ramblings of the liberal arts
graduates in the marketing department.
>here. We're talking about the marketing term. And just like that of
>"word processor", the marketing meaning of "OS" has changed over the
>years, and must be allowed to continue changing. If you think
No it hasn't. That 'murky boundary' has always existed in
pretty much the same place. It only changes to suit the whims of one
particular company and it's supporters.
>otherwise, try putting an OS in the academic sense (a kernel and
>nothing else) into a shrinkwrap box and see how many copies you sell.
>
>I submit that the rest of your argument falls apart, because it's
>based entirely on this misguided notion of yours that Windows must
>embody only the academic definition of the term "operating system".
>
>>
>>Let me offer some observations about the PC hardware marketplace.
>>The first hard disk that I bought cost me $1K and held 10MB. Now
>>I buy one that holds 10GB for $100. The first PC I bought, with a
>>4.7MHz clock and a 1 byte data path (which I bought from another
>>monopoly called IBM, by the way) cost me $3K. Now I buy one that
>>is about 1000 times faster and has 1000 times more memory for
>>$300.
>>
>
>OK.
>
>>
>>Now lets look at operating systems. I used to buy my operating
>>system for $60, and it took about 3 seconds to boot up. Now I buy
>>W2K for $300, and it takes 3 minutes to boot on my system which
>>is 1000 times faster than the one where my old OS would boot in 3
>>seconds. On top of that, it fills up 500MB of my disk, largely
>>with redundant junk that I don't want, which costs me
>>significantly in time every time I (a) back up, (b) do operating
>>system upgrades/maintenance, or (c) have reason to investigate
>>the operating system structure for some reason.
>>
>
>What does any of this prove? Sometimes it just comes down to "you
There is certainly a correlation between the existence of
competitors and price competitiveness. All the other players described
have to deal with the real possibility that they may be done in by another
company that 'does it better'.
Thus 32bit consumer Windows with a reasonable desktop shell in
1995 rather than 1985.
Prior to August 1995, the 'market leader' was still subjecting fools
like you to DOS, yes that's MS-DOS, 10 YEARS after the introduction of the
Macintosh and the 386.
[deletia]
>>In short, while most every area of this business where there is
>>competition, prices have gone down (typically by an order of
>>magnitude) and performance has gone up (typically by 3 orders of
>>magnitute). In the (monopolistic) operating system marketplace,
>>the trends not only haven't kept pace, they have gone in the
>>opposite direction.
>>
>
>You're out of your mind. The price of operating systems has remained
>roughly the same, while their power and functionality has skyrocketed.
>What the hell is wrong with that?
No, the 'power and functionality' of operating systems has not
'skyrocketed' but rather merely caught up with the state of the art of
larger systems. Meanwhile, the growth in 'power' of hardware can be
more objectively measured and it has truely 'skyrocketed' while becoming
remarkably cheaper as well.
Operating Systems have failed to manage the 'becoming remarkably
cheaper' part that corporeal product (namely the hardware) has.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:37:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Federal judges are not elected. They are nominated by the executive
branch and that nomination is ratified by the legislature. The reason
that legal issues are resolved by the judiciary is exactly as you say:
Judges are appointed, and therefore are thought to be insulated from
"pandering to the mob" in a way that elected officials are not.
But to put francis' question "democracy?" into the proper perspective,
let's remember that the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a
democracy. The United States is a federal republic. By isolating
political power between 3 branches in the federal government, and again
at lower levels (state, county, municipal, etc.), the founders believed
that they were protecting individuals as well as the political and legal
system from the "violence of faction" (federalist 10, 41) and other
excesses associated with direct democracy.
Greg Yantz wrote:
> Because for a representative system to actually *function*, once an
> official (either elected or appointed) is in position, within certain
> bounds of accountability they should be free to do as they think best.
> It's a bit of a trade-off.
>
> Anything else, particularly elected officials basing their "leadership"
> on daily opinion polls, tends to resemble pandering to the mob.
> (Circus & dole, anyone?)
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You have never seen Linux like this
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 19:39:22 GMT
Yeah, this comes from a guy who claims "MS business
practices have NOTHING to do with the W2K product."
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love it - guy posts a job opportunity - the very idea of a paid
linux
> programmer - and he is told to fuck off (politely) and is kill
-filed..
>
> yep, the linux community - it's own worse enemy!
>
> "Nicholas Murison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Please fuck off
> > --
> > Nicholas John Murison
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Don't mess with penguins
> > Registered Linux User #153895 http://counter.li.org
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:45:58 -0700
In article <pajX4.13776$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Today's Thorne digest:
>
>1> Using made-up words again, Tholen (little boy)? How ironic.
>
Note: no response
>1> Don't you know?
Note: no response
>2> Don't you know?
Note: no response
>2> Incorrect.
Note: no response
>2> Balderdash.
Note: no response
>3> On what basis do you make this claim?
Note: no response
>3> Prove it, if you think you can.
Note: no response
>3> Prove it, if you think you can.
Note: no response
>3> How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
Note: no response
>3> Incorrect.
Note: no response
>3> Balderdash.
Note: no response
>3> Prove it, if you think you can.
Note: no response
>3> How ironic coming from Dave (Master of Pontification) Tholen.
Note: no response
>3> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Tholen (little
boy)?
>3> How typical.
Note: no response
>How ironic.
Note: no response
>3> Irrelevant.
Note: no response
>3> Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearance in Dave
Tholen's
>3> replies. How typical.
Note: no response
>3> Argument by repetition, Tholen? How typical.
Note: no response
>How ironic.
Note: no response
>4> Balderdash.
Note: no response
>4> Incorrect.
Note: no response
>4> Balderdash.
Note: no response
>4> Incorrect.
Note: no response
>4> Balderdash.
Note: no response
>4> Unnecessary.
Note: no response
>4> Prove it, if you think you can. Meanwhile, where is your
>4> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
>Still haven't learned, eh Thorne?
Prove it, if you think you can. Are you taking inappropriate
posting lessons again, Tholen (little boy)?
>
>
* 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]
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 19:59:35 GMT
On 26 May 2000 01:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C.
Shradrakaii) wrote:
>>
>>Linux is braindead.
>>
>>
>>Your printer works fine under Windows...
>>
>
>I'd like to see someone try to get that beast working under Windows, given that
>they can't use the manufacturer's drivers.
Ahh but that is not a problem under Windows. Either it is supported by
Windows directly or it comes with drivers in the box.
A hardware vendor would never sell a single product otherwise.
>Windows is ONLY even marginally easy (at best) because hardware manufacturers
>write and include Windows drivers for their products. If they included Linux
>drivers, its difficulty of use would drop too.
But they don't so you lose.
>Furthermore, if the printer followed a well-documented standard/semi-standard
>(PCL or PostScript, or even emulating an old Epson dot-matrix), this wouldn't
>be an issue at all. It would set up as that, and work. Printers years ago did
>that. Some even do now. Unfortunately, there are some designers who would
>rather invent something new rather than an existing command set that works.
But a Windows user needs not concern himself with all of that, and I
do agree with you.
Only the Linux user has to settle for second best.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:00:54 GMT
You can still get them. Some companies use them for Multi-part forms.
Others just print multiple copies.
I still have the original IBM printer (made by Epson) as well as a
Proprinter 24XE that works fine.
I prefer my Canon though as it is faster and quieter.
On Fri, 26 May 2000 04:04:02 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Furthermore, if the printer followed a well-documented standard/semi-standard
>: (PCL or PostScript, or even emulating an old Epson dot-matrix), this wouldn't
>: be an issue at all. It would set up as that, and work. Printers years ago did
>: that. Some even do now. Unfortunately, there are some designers who would
>: rather invent something new rather than an existing command set that works.
>
>But of course that's too much like making sense. You can't even get a
>dot-matrix anymore. Noisy as fuck in a production run, but they worked
>great. My old Epson dot-matrix bit the dust recently, which is why I put
>into use that brain-dead inkjet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:02:15 GMT
This is exactly what makes Linux so hysterical. You have to
"experiment" with a piece of hardwre to make it work.
Shit under Windows youplug it in, Windows prompts for a CD, prints a
test page and that's it.
Tell me again how Linux is easier to use?
On Fri, 26 May 2000 09:05:42 -0600, Chris Webster
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there any way to make a Poscript "hello world" file to experiment with?
>> I'm sure a Postscript guru could hand-make a "Hello World" file.
>
>
>%!PS-Adobe-1.0
>% Print Hello world in lower left corner, portrait
>/Times-Roman findfont 20 scalefont setfont
>10 10 moveto
>(Hello, world) show
>showpage
>
>
>--Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:06:17 GMT
Well put Pete.
Like I say all the time "try Linux for yourself" then come back to me
and tell me how great it is.
The nuts in this group live in a fantasy land.
On Fri, 26 May 2000 07:26:10 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>No-Spam (Terry Porter) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>No need to ask Wintroll, people are trying Linux every day, and usually
>>they
>> LOVE it.
>
>I tried it, I don't love it. I don't plan to give up Windows 98 SE any time
>soon, as there are too many things I'd have to leave behind.
>
>>>Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
>>>back here and post your experiences with Linux.
>>They do all the time, rave reviews are common for Linux.
>
>Not from me!
>
>>>If you like Linux, great, you have found a new life. If you hate
>>>Linux, let us know why.
>>If you like Linux, your mind is probably free of blinkers, unlike
>>"simple_simon" the Wintroll.
>
>Ah insults. The only way it would seem Linux advocates try to win their
>arguments. "Wintroll" and the implication that anyone who isn't blinkered
>is going to like Linux.
>
>Hey, I'm not blinkered and I'm not madly in love with Linux like you are! I
>see its faults (all too clearly) just as I see the faults in Windows 98 SE!
>
>>>Try Linux and see for yourself....
>>They do all the time, Wintroll. Years before you started posting people
>>were trying Linux, I was one, and in 1997 I went Linux full time, sold
>>my Win95 CD and have never looked back.
>>
>>Linux rules, you sorry excuse for a Wintroll.
>
>Linux rules? Hah! Linux lags! I want a decent GUI - it seems I have to have
>BOTH KDE and Gnome to get all the configuration tools (unless I want to
>scrabble around the multitude of text files configuring the system). I want
>to be able to use my Epson printer at 1400x720 DPI, instead of 360x360 on
>Linux. I want my network card to work (works on one machine but not
>another, huh?). I want my sound card to work, I mean, how common does it
>have to be? SoundBlaster has been around a LONG time, yet I had enough
>trouble getting that to work! The driver running AHA1510, AHA1520 SCSI
>cards is the same one I saw years ago, what progress there? Oh dear, do I
>have to use my AHA2940 to get support?
>
>Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:06:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in <8gmamm$100u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>And the problem with that would be???? You don't actually need to
>run GNOME, you just need the shared libs.
You don't see a problem with requiring both Gnome and KDE? Oh, I take your
point about the shared libs.
>Doesn't ghostscript take -r1440x720 as an argument?
How does that help me?
>Your network card vendor has the driver. Install it just like
>you would have a few months ago under windows.
Ah I found the problem - I was using lnx4win. This I assumed was a working
version of Linux. When I bought an extra disk for Linux and installed Linux
on it, hey presto, the network is working.
>>I want my sound card to work, I mean, how common does it
>>have to be? SoundBlaster has been around a LONG time, yet I had enough
>>trouble getting that to work!
>
>Got me on this one. I thought you said sndconfig set it up
>right.
Again same problem as the network card - lnx4win.
>>The driver running AHA1510, AHA1520 SCSI
>>cards is the same one I saw years ago, what progress there?
>
>Those cards don't do much of anything. What's wrong with the
>driver. (And, hmmm... do you have a mix of ISA non-pnp cards
>and PCI pnp in that box?).
The 1520 is in a P166 box, the AHA2940 is in the PII-400MHz.
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
