Linux-Advocacy Digest #720, Volume #26 Sat, 27 May 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Chris Wenham)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux (abraxas)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Marco Nelissen)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Marco Nelissen)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: democracy? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Lennart Gahm")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Brad")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Scott Alfter)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Richard Steiner)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Richard Steiner)
Re: democracy? (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Linux Losers ("loser")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Mig Mig)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Pete Goodwin)
Why AOL should not be used in Public School... (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:10:02 GMT
"Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I didn't include the Amiga either. But more to the point, the number of
> people using FreeBSD as a *desktop* OS is probably very very small. Do you
> have any figures on how many people are using it for their daily desktop OS?
>
> Brad
I use it.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 27 May 2000 15:06:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tell me about it. The HP 612 inkjet on my desk at work takes several
>> >minutes to print a single black-and-white page of TeX.
>>
>> This is probably more the transfer time for the bitmap than the
>> actual printer speed. Be sure you have EPP enabled
>> in your bios if you have it. If speed matters you really
>> want a laser printer with a direct network connection instead
>> of using parallel or serial ports at all.
>
>What is EPP?
'Enhanced' parallel port. It was added about 10 years ago and
increases the speed of the port but since the printers of the
time weren't compatible it is an option that is often disabled
by default in the bios. Today's inkjets and lasers should
all be compatible. If you go into setup and see the option,
try turning it on and see if things print faster.
>It's not my printer, and I find a parallel connection fast enough
>for my laserjet at home.
If you are sending graphics, a network connection would likey
be faster. For home use it may not matter, though.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: 27 May 2000 20:10:49 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a Real Unix, dude? Or do we still have the AT&T and Berkely
> offshoots? Or are you talking about SCO UNIX, HPUX, AIX, or what?
Knowing what theyre called does not infer knowing what theyre for.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Marco Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: 27 May 2000 20:23:11 GMT
In comp.sys.be.advocacy Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I didn't include the Amiga either. But more to the point, the number of
>> people using FreeBSD as a *desktop* OS is probably very very small. Do you
>> have any figures on how many people are using it for their daily desktop OS?
>>
>> Brad
> I use it.
That doesn't answer the question.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:33:46 -0500
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > Ask Darren about his 2.4 version number...
>
> Well, how do you like that, Drestin. I'm glad you admit you were wrong.
2.4
> does exist
>
> ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/
Interesting. Did you read this:
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/README-2.4
"No.
It doesn't really exist yet.
But I'll be gone for three weeks, and in the meantime there's a
"2.4.0-test1" kernel here. It's not a real 2.4.0 release, but we should
be getting closer. There's going to be other test-kernels after this
one, and we'll find bugs. And bad behaviour. And wonderful features
which we'll document some day."
> Now, you can no longer claim you never saw a kernel labeled 2.4. Of
course,
> as long as we are playing games with semantics. this is called a "test"
kernel,
> not a "beta".
And Linus says it not a real kernel.
------------------------------
From: Marco Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: 27 May 2000 20:28:36 GMT
In comp.sys.be.advocacy Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BeOS:
> Be was smart to release the personal edition. I don't cover BeOS a great
> deal though but I think it's a fine OS.
Did you actually try the latest version yourself? The screenshot on the page
is very old. If you really reviewed BeOS, you could have at least made
a few screenshots that show recent software running on BeOS.
Marco
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:13:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mathias Grimmberger) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >AFAIK you can't run *any* Linux program (console or X) under Windows.
>
> True.
>
> But, er, it's always the mainstream OS that is emulated by the wannabees. I
> saw this on my Acorn Archimedes - it had an emulator package for Intel, and
> even had a plugin 486 and a driver to allow windows to work.
Hmm, but VMware exists both in a Linux version and a Windows version. Of
course VMware is a third party...
Emulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a
"wannabee". Sometimes it's just for fun (all that game platform
emulators), sometimes it is just useful (VMware, WINE, DOSEMU).
Hehehe, it just occured to me that MS must be a Unix wannabee then. At
least they have a Posix subsystem in NT. Ohhh, they emulate OS/2 too (is
that still in NT 5?). And DOS/Win16.
Sorry, I don't think your argument holds water.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 02:41:32 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 27 May 2000 01:34:41 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Salvador Peralta wrote:
>>>
>>> let's remember that the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a
>>> democracy.
>>
>> Yes it is. It's a representative democracy. The people do rule, through
>> their elected officials (in theory, at least).
>
>Isn't ignorance bliss? The only thing that counts in America is money.
>Your politics are incredibly corrupt. Of course so is the politics of most
>1st world countries. The third world is worse for sure. But the USA should
>set an example and it fails woefully. It appears that in the USA you can
>fool most of the people most of the time. Very sad.
>
>With regard to the earlier comment, in a previous post, about the average person
>being stupid, this is unfortunately true. They aren't born stupid but develop the
>trait through crap educational systems and a life where thinking does them no
>good at all. Who benefits from this. Institutional religion and big business.
>Hmm, that desribes the USA perfectly.
If money were all that mattered, we'd be reelecting President Perot again...
or rather his handpicked successor.
Power matters, money is one manifestation of power, but far from the only one.
however, your point re: corruption is pretty spot on at the national politics
level for sure.
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:48:18 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 18:59:45 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Microsoft may have gotten the idea that the judge was biased
>> against them,
>> >and that they had no hope of getting a fair trial.
>>
>> It's more likely Microsoft got the idea it would be a good dodge
>> if they could convince enough people this was the case, or at
>> least sow reasonable doubt about it.
>
>It's looking more and more like the judge is burying himself. Denying MS
>the time to review the governments proposed remedies shocked most of the
>legal by-standers (including the DOJ, which expected the judge to give MS
>the time). Due process may have been compromised, and will certainly give
>them a lot more firepower in the appeals process.
Can you provide any URL that shows that "most of the legal by-standers"
(whatever that means) and the DOJ was chocked over the Microsofts 48hours and
DOJs only 24hours?
In what way has the process been compromised by the judge?
How do You think that the US appeal court will interpret that Microsoft faked
evidence, "didnt remember", deaning that letters meant what was written and
so on?
I strongly doubt that an appeal court in any country would be impressed by
Microsofts defence, and if so, if Microsoft loses because of their bad
strategy in a lower court they should probely not count on any sympathy from
the judges in the appeal court.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:01:35 GMT
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I did say that I wanted a more granular update mechanism, and
> > that points to what obviously is a flawed mechanism: The hideous
> > amount of redundant code you download with every successive fixpack.
> >
> > The FixPack system is badly flawed for this reason alone.
>
> I understand and yes it would be nice - but that download problem is
> only a problem for those with ~56 kb modems. The media, like a zip
> drive or a CD is more than ample for storage on the client side. A
> more "intelligent" process would identify the OS state and then
> downloaded only that which is needed but the goal is to install an
> unambigous fix pack state so support is easy, not implement DLL Hell.
No, it's a problem regardless of the bandwidth you have. I will not
accept any excuse based on bandwidth availability, and here's why:
OS/2's fixpacks are not inherently related to network connectivity,
meaning that they must be applicable to machines that have negligable
connectivity or none. These machines exist in the hundreds of
millions and range from the advocate's favorite ATM to the easy
majority of people who still only have 56K modems or worse.
Nor are they inherently related to media, so they shouldn't require
specialized media like a ZIP drive or CD ROM. The most we should
reasonably expect is a floppy drive or an analog modem. These have
more than enough capacity to carry the fixes needed for a typical
OS/2 installation. (And that fact already makes the case, but there's
more.)
It should also be recognized that past fixpacks have even included
support for new media themselves, such as high capacity hard drives,
floppy drives, CD ROM types, network interfaces and USB. What then if
your network interface is USB ethernet? What if you want to use 2.8mb
floppies? What if you have a unique CD ROM type that's only supported
in the fixpack you're trying to install?
It has to be understood that the initial configuration of the machine
to be patched is utterly unpredictable and I'm sure you've probably
run into personal experiences yourself when your computer was in an
ususual state of "numb" but critical perhipherals and only our
example's bare minimums.
But these should not just be the only reasons. There is the unspoken
respect every engineer should have for just "doing the right
thing". An .htaccess file ought to prevent someone from downloading
the plain-text password file you've stored in the DocumentRoot of
your web server, but that doesn't excuse what's really a very stupid
idea!
Likewise, there ought to be no excuse for the non-granular,
cumilative fixpack system. The current RSU method /already/ requires
specialized logic to be present on the client end. Logic that can
already detect which files are newer than the replacements. So why
then this insane requirement to dowload all fifteen 1.4 megabyte
files that contain 90 to 95% redundant code?
Lastly, common "diffs" and CVS techniques already prove that we can
create your unambigous state without using blind replacement.
There is no excuse. The OS/2 fixpack system needs its own fixpack
now.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:04:14 GMT
"Marco Nelissen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gpb5k$iig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.sys.be.advocacy Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BeOS:
> > Be was smart to release the personal edition. I don't cover BeOS a
great
> > deal though but I think it's a fine OS.
>
> Did you actually try the latest version yourself? The screenshot on the
page
> is very old. If you really reviewed BeOS, you could have at least made
> a few screenshots that show recent software running on BeOS.
Sorry, I used a screenshot that I thought looked good. I used BeOS PE 5 for
the review.
Brad
>
> Marco
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:05:45 GMT
Marco Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.sys.be.advocacy Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I didn't include the Amiga either. But more to the point, the number of
> >> people using FreeBSD as a *desktop* OS is probably very very small. Do you
> >> have any figures on how many people are using it for their daily desktop OS?
> >>
> >> Brad
>
> > I use it.
>
> That doesn't answer the question.
Ah, but it was my intent only to START the answer.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 16:17:39 -0500
Lennart Gahm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >It's looking more and more like the judge is burying himself. Denying MS
> >the time to review the governments proposed remedies shocked most of the
> >legal by-standers (including the DOJ, which expected the judge to give MS
> >the time). Due process may have been compromised, and will certainly
give
> >them a lot more firepower in the appeals process.
>
> Can you provide any URL that shows that "most of the legal by-standers"
> (whatever that means) and the DOJ was chocked over the Microsofts 48hours
and
> DOJs only 24hours?
> In what way has the process been compromised by the judge?
Do you even read things about the trial?
Just a random URL:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1948724.html
"The pronouncement stunned both sides and stirred a flurry of last-minute
activity from Microsoft's lawyers."
and
"The question is whether Jackson denied Microsoft due process by preventing
a longer examination of the government's remedy proposal. University of
Baltimore Law School professor Bob Lande agreed "Microsoft could have a good
due process claim." "
> How do You think that the US appeal court will interpret that Microsoft
faked
> evidence, "didnt remember", deaning that letters meant what was written
and
> so on?
First of all, Gates deposition isn't counted as an actual witness since the
DOJ didn't put him on the stands. This will also look bad for the
government in that they cheated the process and used the taped deposition to
try and squeak in another witness. The so called "faked" evidence wasn't
faked, but dramatized. MS proved that the evidence put forth in the tape
was correct, even if the tape itself was scripted.
> I strongly doubt that an appeal court in any country would be impressed by
> Microsofts defence, and if so, if Microsoft loses because of their bad
> strategy in a lower court they should probely not count on any sympathy
from
> the judges in the appeal court.
MS's defense is not really all that important to the appeals court. What's
important is that the original trial was fair and by the book.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:27:07 GMT
In article <8gp3mu$c1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, that reminds me --- I have a postscript printer. I have a postscript
>file. How do I get one to print on the other *under Windows*?
"copy foo.ps lpt1:" in a DOS box (or in DOS mode) works for me. I'll ssh
into my Linux box from work, create something that needs to be printed out,
FTP the result to the office, and print it out. It's useful for those tasks
(and there are more than a few) that I can get done more rapidly under
Linux. Access and Visual FoxPro (grr) will only get you so far...some
things are better handled by grep, awk, and friends.
(Cygwin makes Win9x a little more tolerable...replaced an Access database
for looking up old SKUs with a one-page C program. On an approximately
50k-item database, the size of the replacement system was about 40% smaller
than the Access solution, and it runs faster and does more. It looks like a
DOS program (but really isn't), but so does most of my employer's main
business app, so they really don't care. As an added bonus, the program
will also compile under Linux, *BSD, etc. with no changes. I'd like to see
Access do that (no, using VMware doesn't count).)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (salfter at (yo no quiero spam) delphi dot com)
\_^_/ http://salfter.dyndns.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 16:17:52 -0500
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
spake unto us, saying:
>Cvs is free, fairly painless, works cross-platform and gives you
>a nice consolidated area to back up even if your working/testing
>space is distributed. I'd recommend it for your 20000 lines of code
>even if the kernel never goes that route.
Thanks, but I'm afraid cvs doesn't run on OS2200. :-)
I'd use the same tools we use for the application I support if I had
need for a real change control facility.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 16:24:48 -0500
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>Personally, I use source control for practically everything I do. If for
>no other reason, because when I'm finished a set of changes, I can
>compare them to the previous version and make sure I didn't leave in any
>debugging code, etc.
It's easy to do that using a file comparison utility. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
"SHUT THAT BLOODY BAZOUKI OFF!" - Monty Python
------------------------------
From: Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 17:21:57 -0400
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
>
> Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > CNN is conducting a poll whether MS should be split up and if yes into how
> > many parts. Please take a minute to vote for a good cause.
>
> > -> http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoft_breakup.html
>
> The results of these MS breakup polls (consistently 2/3 against) raise some
> interesting questions about the implementation of democracy (in this case in
> the USA).
Technically, we in the USA live in a Republic, not a democracy. In a
republic, the issues are entrusted to elected officials. If we don't
like what they do, we (in theory) vote in different ones. (Not all quite
that simple, but sort of...)
> Why is it that the opinion of the man in the street doesn't matter (because
> they're stupid, stupid! (?)) and why is it that one single person (the judge)
> is to make the decision? Shouldn't there be at least a panel or a jury?
Hate to say it, and I'll probably get flamed, but most people's
knowledge of current events is based solely upon the gunk they get from
the TV. Are they stupid? Maybe not. Are they misinformed? Most likely.
--
------------------------------
From: "loser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Losers
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:32:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Truth)
wrote:
<snip>
> Only pathetic computer geeks use Linux. Ugly stupid people who are
> shunned by society use Linux.
>
> Trendy happy people who laugh with their friends at popular restaurants
> use Microsoft products.
>
> Sad, poxy-faced perpetually virgin males use Linux.
>
<snip>
I'm sick if this! Just because I'm a sad, ugly pathetic loser does not mean I use
linux.
I've been paying out the arse for MS products for years, and don't you forget it!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:37:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Of course it does. There wouldn't really be much point of GNOME
> being a seperate entity if it weren't distinct in some way.
> Visual distinctiveness in interfaces is one of the easiest sorts
> of variety to get away with.
Variety in a desktop is OK provided it's a consistant variety. The subtle
differences between KDE and Gnome are not quite part of that. I don't want
two visual interfaces, I want one that I control.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 23:43:47 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8gmpjq$94q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >No i was not in denial... and he just admitted that the problem was his
> >own error by installing linx4win and not a real install of Mandrake.
>
> You said you didn't believe me. I mean, I made the assumption that lnx4win
> works - how was I supposed to know that it doesn't? Isn't it a version of
> Linux after all?
Beause you didnt Read The Fucking manual.. i think README file
for both RedHat and Mandrake installations tells you what to do.. at least
i remenber reading it in some file in the CD's root directory
> >Even if he was right then it would not be Linux's problem but the problem
> >of the hardware vendors. Its simple.. never aquire hardware that cannot be
> >used properly in Linux. I will certainly not!
>
> You're saying SoundBlaster hardware cannot be used properly in Linux? Isn't
> SoundBlaster the most commonly known name in Sound card circles?
I use a soundblaster card... and that one is even a monster size ISA one -
that according to you is more problematic than PCU cards.. an it works
perfectly.
Ill soon find out out Mandrake and RedHat deals with the newewst SB
hardware when i get my new box.
> >> >I dont believe you.. We have done a dusin or so installs
of Mandrake, > >> >Redhat and Corel on different machines and never
encountered a problem. >
> Oh yeah, I tried installing Corel Linux. It hung during installation.
Never happened to me.. what more can i say.. and i basiccly just put
the CD in and go drink coffee.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:42:36 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The so called "faked" evidence wasn't
> faked, but dramatized. MS proved that the evidence put forth in the tape
> was correct, even if the tape itself was scripted.
This does not wash with me.
If you want to mince words, "Dramatize" is not the one to use and is
even worse. "Fake" (meaning deception by Merriam Webster and friends)
is the correct word and the fact that it was the prosecution and not
the defense who revealed the true nature of the tape is the proof.
Before now I was going to have you show how one could prove this
dramatization was correct. If it was correct, why did it have to be
dramatized? But this is not necessary because it was being presented
as evidence in court without first revealing its scripted nature. I
hope I don't have to explain the gravity of that.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:42:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
<8gp4am$14ua$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Exactly the same Linux gets installed as on a normal partition. The
>difference is the boot sequence where Windows gets a chance to
>poke the p-n-p ports first and apparently disturbs things on that
>machine.
Why would windows messing with PnP upset Linux? Surely Linux would take
over, or can't it do a reset?
>If it isn't the pnp version, autodetection doesn't work. Don't you
>have to define the ports in the DOS driver configuration too?
It's the PnP version. I had to do the following:
pnpdump > /etc/isapnp.conf
... edit the /etc/isapnp.conf file, making sure the settings are correct...
isapnp /etc/isapnp.conf
>Probing for ISA cards has a fair chance of locking some systems. They
>have to make a tradeoff between the number of things they try to
>auto-detect and the number of machines they lock up. This is
>unfortunate, but reflects the nature of the hardware.
Windows does this, and tells you that it might happen. It warns you when
something like this might happen and what to do - why can't Linux do this?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:44:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You are contradicting yourself actually.
Huh? How am I doing that?
Maybe I should have said, "Anything done for Linux is always an
afterthought, if anything is done at all".
Pete
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why AOL should not be used in Public School...
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:45:44 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AOL/Time Warner recently announced their commitment to an education
portal targetted at primary and secondary students. I strenuously
object to AOL exposing children to it's brand in this fashion. Though
they may be providing content of some value, they are also firmly
imprinting their brand on their next generation of consumers.
How is this different than what tobacco was doing? Granted, the product
is (arguably) less insidious, but since much of the government's case
against tobacco was predicated on tobacco targetting kids with its
marketing machine, one wonders whether they will stand silent on this
matter. AOL has placed their logo on every brand-laden page!
- sigh -
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
