Linux-Advocacy Digest #472, Volume #27 Wed, 5 Jul 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Steve Allsopp)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Leslie Mikesell)
which linux is the best (sylvain hutchison)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (abraxas)
Re: Linux code going down hill (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (abraxas)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
lin for win (Ben Donnelly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:48:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > Absolutely. Everyone thinks I'm nuts for keeping my C: around 1.5G
> > and dividing the remaining diskspace into 2-4G chunks.
> >
> > But...when LoseDOS-files has yet another epileptic fit, and trashes
> > a filesystem...well, it only scorches a small portion of the system
> > and I always cross-copy my user data onto a seperate partition
> > (usually a seperate physical drive, if possible).
>
> >
> > Pete
>
> Yes I agree Pete.
>
> Large Windows volumes are an incredibly stupid idea.
> Their scandisk is so slow, I wouldn't recommend giving it anything
> more than say 1 gig a peice if you wanted to see reasonable
performance.
>
> Just giving Windows 2000 file space of that size is bad on it's
already poor
> performance.
>
> Better yet, switch to Mandrake 7.1 and have the Reiser file system
installed
> actoss all that space and you won't have any trouble.
>
> Glad to be of help..
>
> Charlie
Charlie, check the post again. I didn't say any of the above. Aaron did.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:50:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think I'll leave my 10Gbytes as one partition. I've yet to see
Windows
> > trash that yet.
>
> I was Talking about windows, you Ninny!
??? Huh ???
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Allsopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:03:25 +0100
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:01:55 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nothing against the content of your posts mate but hows about cutting the
>> >> sig. One or two lines of content and >20 lines of signature is just plain
>> >> bad netiquette. Four lines is acceptible and good enough for most people.
>> >
>> > 1. Since it's at the end... you don't have to look at it.
>> >
>> > 2. This cuts down on the number of flames from the above-mentioned
>> > idiots,
>> > significantly reducing the need to respond to their idiocy.
>>
>> Child, please read up on usenet netiquette. Believe it or not some people
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Written back in the days of 300 bit/second modems....
>Forgive me for noticing that ... technology has advanced in
>the last 25 years.
If you're lucky enough to live somewhere with good bandwidth access
and no per-minute dialup charges, then good for you. There are still
plenty of us who *do* have to pay by the minute, or who don't have the
luxury of huge bandwidth.
>> still use dial up access on relatively slow lines charged by the minute.
[shortness of .sig duly noted]
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:56:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what you apparently quote:
> > I write Windows device drivers for a living. You know, with all the
crashes
> > and stuff (not my own fault of course), Windows trashes the disk.
and this is what I actually wrote:
"I write Windows device drivers for a living. You know, with all the
crashes and stuff (my own fault of course), not _once_ did Windows
trash the disk."
So, misquoting is another trick, huh Charlie?
> Yes, and the scandisk time is a real pain as you have to re-boot twice
> to get it to fix anything.
>
> What a pain.
Takes a few minutes. I've never needed to reboot. Oh you're talking
about running Scandisk during Windows running - yes it will rerun as it
detects something changed the disk whilst it was trying to scan it.
> Your welcome Pete.
Yes Charlie, thanks for misquoting me.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:08:05 +0100
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:01:59 GMT, "Shock Boy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Would you please define what an IRQ conflict is? I've never experienced one, on the
>Mac or PC side of life..
Have you actually experienced *anything* on the Mac or PC side of
life?
Even those of us who support Linux have had our fair share of
problems, and Windows is no different - I have to work with both
Windows *and* various Unixes. I simply cannot believe that, if you
have ever been responsible for installing and/or running any computer
equipment, you can not have experienced a *single* problem with device
installation, applications problems or operating system bugs.
And, before you get out of your pram about it, I include Unix (yes,
and Linux) in the list of operating systems that experience problems,
as well as Windows.
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:11:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3 times faster, right, Pete?
Pete who?
The title of your post says "Linux 3X faster than W2k". A better
description would be "Linux 3D faster than W2k in tests XXXX" and
replace XXXX with the actual name.
Otherwise people get the mistaken impression you're claiming Linux is 3
times faster than W2k in everything.
Now, for everyone who has been trying to convince me my statement "Linux
lags behind Windows" is unclear - this post is an example of someone
else doing exactly the same thing I am doing.
Of course, we all know he meant Linux is 3x faster than Win2k in the
tests outlined, don't we?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:27:37 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Is it the policy of COLA to insult people - is that the best response? You
> know, I've read a load of stuff by good ol' Charlie who claims Windows is
> under pressure from Linux. I can't help feeling you guys must be under
> pressure if this is how you react!
>
> Pete
Taking Charlie as the typical Linux advocate is like taking
Simon/Steve/Mike/etc or Tim Palmer as a typical Windows advocate. It's
a dangerous and silly assumption. Not everyone think insults are the
only way to win the day.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:46:38 -0500
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 05:09:13 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Jul 2000 12:47:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <QP675.278$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Shock Boy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Um, if you bothered to read my post, you'ld have seen that I installed NT4.0 in a
>dual boot system which came preloaded with
>> >>Win95OSR2.1, which was then upgraded toWin98.
>> >>
>> >>And only a moron thinks that reformatting and reinstall of the OS is necessary to
>go from Fat32 to Fat16. You can convert a Fat32
>> >>formatting to Fat16 without doing that. It was very straightforward, intuitive
>and easy to accomplish. Especially since I had very
>> >>little experience on the PC side, having been almost exclusively Mac prior to
>getting a PC.
>> >
>> >Do you do the conversion with win95 or NT? It wasn't intuitive
>> >enough for me to find the program that does it.
>>
>> Partition Magic can do it - from 32 to 16. Built-in OS tools in 98
>
>Since when did Partition Magic become a part of the basic support
>software included by Microsloth????
It isn't. I haven't stated it is. Please re-read the (entire) quoted
text.
>The fact is, Microsoft doesn't even support their own shit properly.
>
>[And *smelly* shit, it is]
Going from FAT32 to FAT16, you'd expect them to support that? C'mon -
it isn't as if anyone would ever need to do that, so why should MS
support it? And Apple's no better - wanna go from HFS+ to HFS?
Reformat! Want to go from HFS to HFS+? **REFORMAT**! At least MS
lets you go "up" from FAT to FAT32 just by running thier included
utility.
>> handle the move from 16 to 32, either at OS install time or at the
>> time of the user's choosing via the accessories menu.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 5 Jul 2000 09:46:21 -0500
In article <8jup7l$ou7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> But some times an app dying does cause a BSOD in W2K. The example
>> would be this URL I sent you concerning apps that did not close file
>> handles. You know, the one where MS said it was the fault of the app,
>> not the OS.
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP
>
>Alright, I concede. "Most" apps don't cause a BSOD on Windows 2000.
Now if you concede that your case where you managed to hang kfm
wasn't 'Linux' failing, or that 'Most' apps don't crash under
Linux, we might be making progress...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sylvain hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: which linux is the best
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:57:39 -0700
I just got RH6.1, it looks really good, but how good is it compared to
the others, I hear that Mandrake is pretty good too, but Corel however
isn't. Why is that, is it because it is full of bugs, hard to install,
or simply a question of interface???
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:51:05 +0100
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:32 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> >Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
>> >defined?
>> >
>> >hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
>>
>> No, that's exactly what it isn't. The whole point of PnP is that
>> IRQs etc. are settable by _software_ so that you don't have to
>> bugger around with jumpers. In theory it should be simple for a
>> PnP-aware OS to find a working configuration, but somehow Windows
>> manages to break in exciting and unpredictable ways.
>
>Because of hardware that doens't follow the PnP standards.
Feh. That's *too* easy. Why is it, then, that a piece of hardware that
resolutely fails to install and configure under Windows (no idea
whether or not it "follows PnP standards") is capable of being
installed flawlessly, in one hit, on the same machine under Linux? The
hardware in question, BTW, was a Creative AWE32 and a Pace modem.
If a bunch of h8ck3r g33ks can get it to work, why on earth cannot
Microsoft?
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best
Date: 5 Jul 2000 10:00:26 -0500
In article <8jv4s0$mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>HI:
>I agree. Linux has no regard for service.
Who? What? That makes about as much sense
as saying 'automobiles' have no regard for
service. That may very well be true but
it doesn't mean you can't get service for one.
>They ONLY offer web service for people that
>pay for the software and then they do not
>respond I have been waiting ONE week.
Who is this 'they'?
>respond I have been waiting ONE week.
>Also they have all kinds of gimmicks with
>their rebates so they can keep your money
If you are concerned about the price, why
not use a free download or one of the
cheapbytes-type knockoffs?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 5 Jul 2000 15:15:08 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8jup3p$1qrn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> Of course not. But if you had even a little bit of will to actually
>> try to make the operating system in question work, you would have
>> found the answer to my question.
>
> Why, what does it prove? Is chattr anything to do with anything I've
> found? You're picking an example unconnected with what I'm doing!
>
It proves that you have (and likely had) no interest in making it work
at all.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:16:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 04 Jul 2000 23:21:33 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on 4 Jul 2000 21:49:27 GMT <8jtm57$gn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> >How can you move from VM on an S/390 to linux on an S/390 and lose EBCDIC?
>>
>> Who says we've lost it? :-)
>>
>> dd conv=ascii if=ebcdic_file of=ascii_file
>> dd conv=ebcdic if=ascii_file of=ebcdic_file
>> dd conv=ibm if=ascii_file of=ebcdic2_file (different mapping?)
>
>
>That's good for PRINTING Characters, but the control-characters
>have different nuances, and don't translate very well.
>
>For example, EBCDIC doesn't have anything that corresponds exactly to
>the control characters SOH and EOH (Start of Header, End of Header).
Interesting. Now that I didn't know.
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 5 Jul 2000 15:16:02 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I figured your mainly using a PC for a nightlight.
>> But seriously, I didn't say Windows 2000 couldn't post to Newsgroups.
>> You seem to post to this one every 5 minutes.
>
> Avoid the question all you like Charlie, just like you have in other
> posts. C'mon, answer the question - please explain how Windows 2000 is
> _not_ based on NT technology!
>
Avoid questions?
What about the post where all of YOUR lies were exposed?
I didnt notice a response to that, pete. Your credibility is zero.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:22:12 -0500
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:51:05 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:32 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>> >Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
>>> >defined?
>>> >
>>> >hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
>>>
>>> No, that's exactly what it isn't. The whole point of PnP is that
>>> IRQs etc. are settable by _software_ so that you don't have to
>>> bugger around with jumpers. In theory it should be simple for a
>>> PnP-aware OS to find a working configuration, but somehow Windows
>>> manages to break in exciting and unpredictable ways.
>>
>>Because of hardware that doens't follow the PnP standards.
>
>Feh. That's *too* easy. Why is it, then, that a piece of hardware that
>resolutely fails to install and configure under Windows (no idea
>whether or not it "follows PnP standards") is capable of being
>installed flawlessly, in one hit, on the same machine under Linux? The
>hardware in question, BTW, was a Creative AWE32 and a Pace modem.
Yet some people on here say Linux does a -worse- job of PnP detection
than does Win2k. Hmm... I think there's still a lot of confusion on
the issue. In any case, I've not had problems, save one, with
hardware installation in any X86 W2k or W98 (or Linux 2.2) machine.
The one problem - inserting an unknown-brand NIC into an HP6645C (the
$150 computer) caused the machine to yell at me during powerup (before
an OS is loaded) with some sort of conflict, so I popped that NIC out,
put in another one, and all was well.
>If a bunch of h8ck3r g33ks can get it to work, why on earth cannot
>Microsoft?
On the contrary, those products were made to work in Windows. It's
you that hasn't gotten it to work; I suspect doing a bit of research
(BIOS PnP turned on? Did they have any IRQ assigned to them ever, if
not PnP hardware?) and such would help a lot...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:23:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 5 Jul 2000 11:32:41 GMT <8jv6cp$5h6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think you mean font of wisdom (I apologide it was just a typo).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Is that Times or Helvetica? Or Zapf Dingbats? :^)
"Font" is actually a legitimate usage here. :-)
According to the dictionary (www.dictionary.com, that is),
4. An abundant source; a fount:
She was a font of wisdom and good sense.
Yes, it's all a conspiracy to confuse the native speaker! :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- may the black helicopters have mercy on your
dangling participles :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:21:30 GMT
On 5 Jul 2000 09:46:21 -0500,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8jup7l$ou7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> But some times an app dying does cause a BSOD in W2K. The example
>>> would be this URL I sent you concerning apps that did not close file
>>> handles. You know, the one where MS said it was the fault of the app,
>>> not the OS.
>>>
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP
>>
>>Alright, I concede. "Most" apps don't cause a BSOD on Windows 2000.
>
>Now if you concede that your case where you managed to hang kfm
>wasn't 'Linux' failing, or that 'Most' apps don't crash under
>Linux, we might be making progress...
>
Yeah...and he should also concede that he has extensive experience
with Windows desktops and has comparatively taken little time to
familiarize himself with desktops that run on Linux.
Furthermore, he should concede that a comparison of desktops alone is
not enough to make an all inclusive statement like "Linux lags behind
Windows". After all, both Linux and Windows are used for more than
desktops.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:30:20 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:51:05 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:32 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>> Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> >>> >Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
> >>> >defined?
> >>> >
> >>> >hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
> >>>
> >>> No, that's exactly what it isn't. The whole point of PnP is that
> >>> IRQs etc. are settable by _software_ so that you don't have to
> >>> bugger around with jumpers. In theory it should be simple for a
> >>> PnP-aware OS to find a working configuration, but somehow Windows
> >>> manages to break in exciting and unpredictable ways.
> >>
> >>Because of hardware that doens't follow the PnP standards.
> >
> >Feh. That's *too* easy. Why is it, then, that a piece of hardware that
> >resolutely fails to install and configure under Windows (no idea
> >whether or not it "follows PnP standards") is capable of being
> >installed flawlessly, in one hit, on the same machine under Linux? The
> >hardware in question, BTW, was a Creative AWE32 and a Pace modem.
>
> Yet some people on here say Linux does a -worse- job of PnP detection
> than does Win2k. Hmm... I think there's still a lot of confusion on
> the issue. In any case, I've not had problems, save one, with
> hardware installation in any X86 W2k or W98 (or Linux 2.2) machine.
>
> The one problem - inserting an unknown-brand NIC into an HP6645C (the
> $150 computer) caused the machine to yell at me during powerup (before
> an OS is loaded) with some sort of conflict, so I popped that NIC out,
> put in another one, and all was well.
So you just keep trying until you get something that works. No wonder
Windows TCO is so high.
BTW, read a few PC magazines for a few thousand more examples.
>
> >If a bunch of h8ck3r g33ks can get it to work, why on earth cannot
> >Microsoft?
>
> On the contrary, those products were made to work in Windows. It's
> you that hasn't gotten it to work; I suspect doing a bit of research
> (BIOS PnP turned on? Did they have any IRQ assigned to them ever, if
> not PnP hardware?) and such would help a lot...
Of course. It's always the user's fault. Windows could never have a
problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:22:58 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 07:52:08 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In other words, you have absolutely no experience with current day
>> Unix, and definitely no previous experience with current day Unix
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> desktops.
^^^^^^^^
>You didn't even know all flavors of UNIX today have
>> journalled filesystems.
>
>Like that is relevant to the UNIX desktop.
It say's desktops above. And you were the one who asked about data
loss on power failure, which is what journalling protects you from.
>> But too long ago....and not comparable experience present day UNIX
>desktops,
>> which is what you are comparing.
>
>It wasn't that long ago. Unless of course UNIX has radically altered
>over such a short time.
Long enough ago for you not know about journalled filesystems, and not
to know anything about current day Unix desktops.
>> You lack sufficient experience to make such evaluations. Period.
>
>You lack sufficient knowlegde to make this evaluation. Period.
Nonsense. Based on your own posts it is clear you have considerable
experience with Windows desktops and have comparatively taken little
time to familiarize yourself with desktops that run on Linux.
>> You are the one saying "Linux lags behind Windows". How is anyone
>> supposed to know what you mean by "windows". And how is someone
>> supposed to know by "Linux" you mean Unix desktops??
>
>I mean Linux not UNIX. I said Linux, did I not? I am evaluating Linux,
>not other UNIX's. I stand by what I say: "Linux lags behind Windows".
You lack sufficient knowlegde to make this evaluation. Nor is it
reasonable to take your comparison out of the context of desktops, as
your statement does.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:33:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 04 Jul 2000 05:50:49 GMT
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:18:34 -0400, someone claiming to be Rick wrote:
>
>>Roger wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
>>> wrote:
>
>>> >An IRQ conflict occurs when the Windows demon-gods arbitrarily decide to
>>> >prevent your various pieces of hardware from working together until you
>>> >prove your devotion. You can prove this by spending several hours in
>>> >the Device Manager changing obscure numbers and rebooting to see if it
>>> >works. Watch out: the demon-gods will throw obstacles in your path.
>>> >Some pieces of hardware can't use certain IRQs. Others require multiple
>>> >IRQs. Some combinations of IRQs won't work. Sometimes the IRQs have to
>>> >be in a certain order. And if, in the end, your tortured sense of the
>>> >rational survives, then all the bounty of Windows shall be yours...until
>>> >you want to install something else.
>
>>> Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
>
>>Um, becasue its designed that way?
>
>Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
>defined?
>
>hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
So why doesn't Linux have IRQ problems?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Ben Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: lin for win
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:57:40 -0400
I'm thinking of creating a site for linux newbies (I'm fairly new
myself) which is oriented towards explaining how linux and unix work
as compared to window/dos.
The idea here is to help people who have installed linux and are at
the *now what* phase. If they felt confident to go through the install
process, they probably know a good bit about how wintel computers
work, but are having trouble translating their knowledge into linux.
My questions are
1. Would you like to contribute? If so, contact me.
2. Is there a similar site or set of resources already in existance?
--
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Ben Donnelly UNC-CH Med School
Server Adminstrator (919)966-9900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: (919)966-6923
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
