Linux-Advocacy Digest #194, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 18:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Jason McNorton)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows98 ("Robert L.")
Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors] (abraxas)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Mark Ritchie)
Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors] (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Matthias Warkus)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Leslie Mikesell)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (WhyteWolf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason McNorton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:20:30 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <QLv35.196$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Sam Morris"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > For some reason Windows assumes that I have a floppy. I have told the
> > BIOS
> > > > that I don't have one, but I still see a generic removeable drive
> > > > icon
> > in
> > > My
> > > > Computer, and get an enormous and annoying delay whenever anything
> > > > tries
> > > to
> > > > access it. Does anyone know what I can do about this? :)
> > >
> > > Good question, I don't think I've ever had a machine without a floppy
> > > :).
> > >
> > > At a guess, I'd say if you go to the "Devices" control panel, scroll
> > > down
> > to
> > > "floppy" and set it's startup (button on the right) to "disabled", that
> > > would do it. Hit the "stop" button to stop the driver.
> >
> > Hurrah! The bane of my existance has disappeared! Thank you!
> >
> > Now if only Windows was clever enough to realise that I didn't have a
> > floppy
> > drive attached in the first place... :)
>
> That's asking a lot.....
>
>
> I'm just starting up a new PC and having fun with more of the Windows
> garbage....
>
> Celeron 566
> Abit BE6-II
> 192 MB PC 100 RAM
> Voodoo3 video
> Creative Labs Soundblaster 128
> And so on.
>
> Here's where it gets interesting. I installed everything in a new case
> and everything seems to work OK. When I use my old drive (which has
> Win98 on it), it starts and everything's OK. But now, I install a new
> DMA-66 drive. Here's where it gets fun.
>
> I didn't install a floppy drive. I figure--who needs one nowadays, but I
> did order an LS-120 drive. Unfortunately, it's not here yet. No problem,
> you can boot from a Windows CD, right?
>
> I set the BIOS to boot from CD.
>
> Install Win2K CD. Boot. It boots OK from the CD (other than the
> silliness of asking me if I really want to boot from a CD). Win2K loads,
> and asks if I want to install. I hit 'enter'.
>
> Oops. Win2K won't recognize a DMA66 drive.
>
> Oh, well. I'll try Windows Millenium (latest beta). Go through the same
> process.
>
> Oops. Boot failure. Apparently, you can't boot from the Millenium CD.
>
> So much for ease of use......
This is probably a result of you getting a lot of half-working used junk
off ebay.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:32:51 GMT
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
> >On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:36:23 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
> >>Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
> >>speed? ;-)
> >
> > Even if that happened, our kernel is modular. The wise sysadmin
> > would still be able to rip it back out if necessary. So, the
> > whole point is moot.
>
> Not necessarily. Just as you practically need perl, python and half a
> dozen other scripting packages to run a full featured Linux
> installation, so you will probably end up needing the GUI.
God help us all if this day ever comes. A server *needing* a GUI to run
is just too revolting as a concept.
Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
Animated menues/windows, webpages as desktop background, an annoying
startup sound, dialog boxes that fade out and so on are not features of
a server OS.
A workstation is something else, though I still wonder why anyone would
want to actively *slow down* the GUI. At least one can disable most of
that crap in Windows.
[M-x snip]
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:32:08 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:06:44 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:QLv35.196$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> > > That's mighty nice for those able to run NT. :)
>> >
>> > Well, it's hardware requirements are hardly what you'd describe as
>extreme
>> > today.
>>
>> Maybe not in your case. I'm just a poor student. Although I had Win2k
>> running on my machine for about 2 months, I switched back to 98 since
>almost
>> every game I was ever interested in playing ran too slowly for it to be
>> worth it.
>
>If you can run 98, you can certainly run NT4. You just have to decide
>whether the extra reliability and stability are worth not being able to play
>games.
...at which point you might as well begin to consider
other non-Windows options. If you can't "run everything",
why bother with Microsoft?
>
>Anyway, I'm a poor student (in Australia, even, where computer equimpent is
>taxed up the wazoo) and I can still afford a machine to run it :). All you
>really need is gobs of RAM, which is cheap. My Celeron 450 is two years old
>and runs Win2k just fine - that's hardly a high powered machine today. Even
>if I clocked it back down to 300Mhz it'd be fine.
>
>
>
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:34:14 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Kelley) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Any my PC came with the OS install in Windows\Options. What's to stop
> >> me backing this up?
> >
> >UCITA and the DMCA both make this illegal. You are using a
> >technological means to circumvent a copy-protection scheme. If you
> >don't mind pirating software and trampling over copyright law, then go
> >ahead and abuse the license you paid for.
> >
> >Or, you could use Linux... ;-)
>
> I see. I buy a PC with a license to use Windows. By no fault of my own,
> Windows gets wiped. How then do I recover it? If I make a backup of my
> system, then it's illegal?
That's exactly the rights that DMCA gives to software houses. That's
why we're fighting it with css-auth (the DVD battle).
> Interesting, I wonder if that would stick under English law. It does not
> seem unreasonable to make to make such a backup. If that's the way
> Microsoft see as protecting themselves and avoiding pirate copies, then I
> can't see how that would work.
But you see, Microsoft doesn't trust their own customers.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:45:28 GMT
Win98 is a good OS. If well configured, it may be bug less.
I mean, habitually, it take 3-4 month before i have to reinstalled it.
Some people here are saying they reinstalled it more often, but I don't
think is true.
( people saying Linux is ot installable is not true )
My windows system is good for everyone at home, everyone can play great
games ( diablo, sims etc... ). But it sometimes do BSOD, and when it do
that, a lot of times, sound go in infinite loop. Have to restart the
computer.
=====
Now, my sister is on Linux, using Netscape. Latter today, my parents will be
on my computers. One playing card games in windows, the other one playing
some game in Linux. ( kde, gnome and X games )
They are all able to log in, quit, etc...
I don't say the root pasword, so my system will always be untouched ( until
i log as root and i make a mistake, i say that cause my niece already erase
some usefull data on windows but never on Linux )
The best part is ( after reading, thinking, trying, asking ) they no longer
need to type startx
to start X. On the bash profile ( .bash_profile ) I append
startx
exit
This way, X start, and when they stop X, the login prompt appear. This way,
they can't even change the config file. ( i'm the administrator )
If everyone can get 2 computer, the best bet is to have 1 windows system
for having fun with games ), and 1 Linux system ( learning programming,
learning lot of other things, share internet connection, etc... )
1 computer, 2 OS is the worst thing i see.
2 computer, 1 OS is illegal. ( if it's windows )
Linux as home user computer is not yet true. Maybe if big companie ( Maxis,
EA, etc ) know that Linux exist ( their web server may be on Linux but they
don't know !!! ) the Linux for home user will cetainly be true in less than
1 years.
Anyway, i learn Linux, and i will continue using it for a very long time. I
like it much more than windows.
"David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
LYl35.1231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi everyone. First of all to avoid void flames, I work as GNU/Linux
> and Solaris administration, and do not find difficult any of them. I can
> manage to do whatever I want be it from GNU/Linux, Solaris, Windows
> NT, Windows 98, and the so ... (I've been playing around with computers
> since CP/M 2.2, and I like them and I think I understand them ...). This
> said, I find that as home OS, Windows 98 is the TODAY option for almost
> everyone. Sure it freezes, sure registry is awful, sure it is expensive,
> sure it
> is a shitty code, but sure that if something can be done with a computer
> (again,
> home users in mind), then Windows 98 can do it (okay, try do it well at
> least,
> to be honest). I mean, why have only GNU/Linux at my home when a magazine
> gives an English course (for Windows) ? Why can't I test all those new
games
> ?
> Why can't I use my hardware (Windows 98 targeted most of it) at full power
?
> Yeah, I know GNU/Linux does support most of the hardware, but a lot of
> vendors add nice features that are only available with Windows 98 drivers.
> Even
> Windows 2000 fails at this (and at games and multimedia too). Sure that if
> I only do programming and internet, GNU/Linux is the best real option, but
> having only GNU/Linux at home, does close unnecessarily some doors that
> some day you may cross, doesn't it ?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors]
Date: 19 Jun 2000 21:46:07 GMT
OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/editors_note.asp
And?
=====yttrx
> abraxas wrote:
>> > What's going on here?
>>
>> Microsoft is trying to fool you, and theyve drastically underestimated your
>> intelligence and computer experience. I.e.; theyve assumed that you're
>> one of their customers.
>>
>> -----yttrx
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:43:38 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sometimes the truth hurts Nathaniel.
>
> Linux in terms of market share is less than a hangnail on Microsoft or
> Apples foot.
>
> Things may change in time, I have no crystal ball, but for now
> learn to deal with it. You'll feel a whole lot better about
>
> simon
Like I've said before, I don't give a shit how many people do or don't
use Linux, I will use it. It doesn't matter if it's 3 people, two
people, one person, one million people, I don't give a fuck. Saying
that no-one uses it is false. I use it. That means that either I am
no-one (a point which quite honestly I would be willing to believe most
of the time) or that you are wrong. Since I'm not the only one posting
honest comments on Linux in here, I'm guessing that you are wrong when
you say that only Windows is used on PCs. For the most part, yes,
WIndows is used, but that does not make it the only operating system
used. You need to deal with the fact that there are alternatives to
WIndows, and people will use those alternatives. Telling me that I need
to deal with Microsoft is a crock of shit, because I don't give a fuck
what M$ does. THey can continue to grow, or they can fall all over
themselves. It doesn't matter. Linux is here now, it will be used by
people like me whether M$ is there or not. So I know that M$ is the
leader (numbers wise), and I have no problem dealing with that. But
that does not mean they are the only option. Only someone completely
narrow minded would think that you can only have one solution. So once
again I say, "SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
I know I'm wasting my breath. Simon/Steve/Whathisfuckingnametoday won't
ever believe that people actually use Linux. That's fine. Keep
spreading your lies you bastard. I'm still going to use Linux, and I'm
not the only one. Keep on lying and trying, you won't change reality.
No matter how much market share M$ has, Linux exists. If people didn't
use it at all it would cease to exist. It hasn't happened yet, and
anyone with even the slightest clue knows it isn't going to. So, in ten
years we will see which OS is still hanging on. Again, I don't give a
fuck what MS does or doesn't do. MS isn't what my computing time is
spent working on. I work for a company completely Linux/Unix/BSD
based. That negates the point that MS is the only OS supplier to the
world. There you go bitch.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mark Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:48:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> In article <QLv35.196$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Sam Morris"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > For some reason Windows assumes that I have a floppy. I have told
>> > > > the
>> > BIOS
>> > > > that I don't have one, but I still see a generic removeable drive
>> > > > icon
>> > in
>> > > My
>> > > > Computer, and get an enormous and annoying delay whenever anything
>> > > > tries
>> > > to
>> > > > access it. Does anyone know what I can do about this? :)
>> > >
>> > > Good question, I don't think I've ever had a machine without a
>> > > floppy
>> > > :).
>> > >
>> > > At a guess, I'd say if you go to the "Devices" control panel, scroll
>> > > down
>> > to
>> > > "floppy" and set it's startup (button on the right) to "disabled",
>> > > that
>> > > would do it. Hit the "stop" button to stop the driver.
>> >
>> > Hurrah! The bane of my existance has disappeared! Thank you!
>> >
>> > Now if only Windows was clever enough to realise that I didn't have a
>> > floppy
>> > drive attached in the first place... :)
>>
>> That's asking a lot.....
>>
>>
>> I'm just starting up a new PC and having fun with more of the Windows
>> garbage....
>>
>> Celeron 566
>> Abit BE6-II
>> 192 MB PC 100 RAM
>> Voodoo3 video
>> Creative Labs Soundblaster 128
>> And so on.
>>
>> Here's where it gets interesting. I installed everything in a new case
>> and everything seems to work OK. When I use my old drive (which has
>> Win98 on it), it starts and everything's OK. But now, I install a new
>> DMA-66 drive. Here's where it gets fun.
>>
>> I didn't install a floppy drive. I figure--who needs one nowadays, but I
>> did order an LS-120 drive. Unfortunately, it's not here yet. No problem,
>> you can boot from a Windows CD, right?
>>
>> I set the BIOS to boot from CD.
>>
>> Install Win2K CD. Boot. It boots OK from the CD (other than the
>> silliness of asking me if I really want to boot from a CD). Win2K loads,
>> and asks if I want to install. I hit 'enter'.
>>
>> Oops. Win2K won't recognize a DMA66 drive.
>>
>> Oh, well. I'll try Windows Millenium (latest beta). Go through the same
>> process.
>>
>> Oops. Boot failure. Apparently, you can't boot from the Millenium CD.
>>
>> So much for ease of use......
>
>This is probably a result of you getting a lot of half-working used junk
>off ebay.
Are you sure that's where Joe bought his copy of Win2K?
--
Mark A Ritchie
http://members.home.net/knowbodies/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors]
Date: 19 Jun 2000 16:48:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/editors_note.asp
>
>abraxas wrote:
>
>> > What's going on here?
>>
>> Microsoft is trying to fool you, and theyve drastically underestimated your
>> intelligence and computer experience. I.e.; theyve assumed that you're
>> one of their customers.
Wow - that's bizarre. The pages claim to be Newsweek's but the
navigation menus on the left where you expect them belong to
MSN. You have to hunt to find the Neweek content.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 21:15:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>> sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
>No, it isn't the '70's, it is a new century.
No, it's not. The new century starts on the comin January 1st.
Cheers,
Rob (there we go again ;-))
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
In a small way, [Richard Stallmans] ideas seem to coincide with
Microsoft's ideas, of computing, [...]
-- Stephen S. Edwards II in <83i1m1$phs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:15:17 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:57:23 -0400...
...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
> >> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
> >> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
> >
> >Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
> >no on is forcing KDE on to you...
>
>
> The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
1. KDE is not a window manager.
2. Thus it can't be the best one for Linux.
If you mean KWM, the window manager that ships with the current KDE...
there are better ones, believe me. Even the KDE team has realised
that, that's why they chose to write a new WM for KDE 2.
mawa
--
FreeBSD is your father. The strict disciplinarian, "Our default shell
is not BASH! We do things the BSD way, and so will you."
Linux is that cool uncle that makes sure you have fun, but when you
look carefully he is keeping a close eye on you [...] -- mlw
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:20:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 18 Jun 2000 22:38:15 GMT...
...and Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I would suspect not. As for getting rid of vi, isn't that why we have emacs :-)?
>
> (must...control...fist...of...death...)
>
> s/emacs/vim/. Emacs is what we'd get if Micro$oft wrote GNU software.
Vim is what we got when vi finally caught up with Emacs.
mawa
--
Level 7 - Application Layer
User just uses applications. Needs to have his/her applications to
hand when he/she boots up. Doesn't know and can't tell difference
between Win95 and Unix of any flavour. A corporate user. --Cliff Pratt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:19:15 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:50:54 -0400...
...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:19:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>: Is Microsoft an important business?
> >>
> >>I guess it depends how you define "business," but assuming Microsoft
> >>can be considered at least in part a business, not merely a criminal
> >>organization, its market capitalization and the prominence of several
> >>of its products do qualified it as being quite important.
>
> I think you people have finally lost touch of reality.
This is all very off-topic, as Microsoft are most definitely nothing
that's to be discussed in this group, but are you trying to claim
Microsoft have not been engaged in criminal activities?
mawa
--
Level 7 - Application Layer
User just uses applications. Needs to have his/her applications to
hand when he/she boots up. Doesn't know and can't tell difference
between Win95 and Unix of any flavour. A corporate user. --Cliff Pratt
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:58:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > In article <QLv35.196$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Sam Morris"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > For some reason Windows assumes that I have a floppy. I have told
> > > > > the
> > > BIOS
> > > > > that I don't have one, but I still see a generic removeable drive
> > > > > icon
> > > in
> > > > My
> > > > > Computer, and get an enormous and annoying delay whenever
> > > > > anything
> > > > > tries
> > > > to
> > > > > access it. Does anyone know what I can do about this? :)
> > > >
> > > > Good question, I don't think I've ever had a machine without a
> > > > floppy
> > > > :).
> > > >
> > > > At a guess, I'd say if you go to the "Devices" control panel,
> > > > scroll
> > > > down
> > > to
> > > > "floppy" and set it's startup (button on the right) to "disabled",
> > > > that
> > > > would do it. Hit the "stop" button to stop the driver.
> > >
> > > Hurrah! The bane of my existance has disappeared! Thank you!
> > >
> > > Now if only Windows was clever enough to realise that I didn't have a
> > > floppy
> > > drive attached in the first place... :)
> >
> > That's asking a lot.....
> >
> >
> > I'm just starting up a new PC and having fun with more of the Windows
> > garbage....
> >
> > Celeron 566
> > Abit BE6-II
> > 192 MB PC 100 RAM
> > Voodoo3 video
> > Creative Labs Soundblaster 128
> > And so on.
> >
> > Here's where it gets interesting. I installed everything in a new case
> > and everything seems to work OK. When I use my old drive (which has
> > Win98 on it), it starts and everything's OK. But now, I install a new
> > DMA-66 drive. Here's where it gets fun.
> >
> > I didn't install a floppy drive. I figure--who needs one nowadays, but
> > I
> > did order an LS-120 drive. Unfortunately, it's not here yet. No
> > problem,
> > you can boot from a Windows CD, right?
> >
> > I set the BIOS to boot from CD.
> >
> > Install Win2K CD. Boot. It boots OK from the CD (other than the
> > silliness of asking me if I really want to boot from a CD). Win2K
> > loads,
> > and asks if I want to install. I hit 'enter'.
> >
> > Oops. Win2K won't recognize a DMA66 drive.
> >
> > Oh, well. I'll try Windows Millenium (latest beta). Go through the same
> > process.
> >
> > Oops. Boot failure. Apparently, you can't boot from the Millenium CD.
> >
> > So much for ease of use......
>
> This is probably a result of you getting a lot of half-working used junk
> off ebay.
>
Really? Is that your attempt at a rational argument?
Which of the items above are junk?
Since all the hardware worked, you must be referring to Windows as junk.
That's one of the first things you've ever said that I wouldn't disagree
with.
(None of them came from eBay, anyway).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 16:55:17 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
>feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
Does that mean there is some version of windows now that
will find it's mouse without rebooting if you happen to have
had the console switch directed elsewhere as it comes up
(or any other reason it wasn't seen at boot-up)? I know - I
should just buy the expensive KVMs that fake the mouse
for windows when the switch is in a different position, but...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 20:05:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2000 11:42:40 GMT, WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colin R. Day wrote:
[sniped my mistake about vim]
>>
>
>The command to quit without writing is quit!, not !quit. !quit runs
>the shell command "quit".[*]
>
>* I know that the "!" command is meant to pipe text to a command
>and replace the text with the output of the command, but when you
>don't have any text selected and you don't give any line numbers,
>most VI implementations will run the command with the standard
>input and output connected to the terminal.
sorry ... thats right ... it's just been forever sence
I used vi ... with things like Emacs, pico, LaTeX,
nano, jed, Joe, NEdit... Etc. Etc. Etc. I havn't had
the want till recently {emacs isn't installed on this system
and I needed something with syntax highlighting}
--
-=-=-=-=-
Are you mentally here at Pizza Hut??
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
