Linux-Advocacy Digest #725, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Tim Palmer)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Tim Palmer)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Tim Palmer)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Tim Palmer)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:59:56 +1000
"Karl Knechtel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:34:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : wrote:
> <snip>
> : If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a CMT system, the
> : rest of the tasks get very little CPU time, and end up starving.
> : That's the major flaw in CMT.
>
> : If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a PMT system, the
> : rest of the tasks get the vast, vast majority of the CPU time, and the
> : system continues to run cleanly. That's the major benefit in PMT. A
>
> I highly doubt that. Unless your computer is psychic, how is it supposed
> to know when will be the next time the foreground app actually *receives*
> input? It won't.
Technically, no. What it will know is that some input, somewhere, has
arrived and caused an interrupt. The OS stops, saves the state of whatever
is running and then processes the interrupt. *Depending on implementation*,
the OS may then choose to restart the process that was interrupted, the one
that is waiting for input on whichever device caused the interrupt, or
another one altogether.
However, all this switching happens so fast between processes that whether
or not the process waiting for input receives it and a time slice straight
after it happens ir irrelevant.
> And if you don't give very much processor time to the
> foreground app, there's a good chance (because the distribution is
> effectively random) that it won't have processor time at the moment the
> input is received.
The distribution is not random in any scheduling method I am aware of. At
worst, it's round-robin, which given the speed of todays processors would
still be better than CMT.
You'd have to be running a *lot* of processes, all with some actual work to
do (a very rare occurrence) to get delays.
> You're going to get either dropped keystrokes or choppy
> responsiveness, unless the timeslice is small (probably not a problem)
*and*
> you have a way of buffering that input when the app that has to deal with
> it doesn't have CPU time.
No, because input is buffered by the OS, not the app. Additionally, input
is handled by interrupts, which suspend any running process so they can be
dealt with.
> I'm not a hardware engineer, but that last bit
> seems to imply (to me anyway) that *something* has to be watching the
input
> device on every cycle, possibly an additional processor. (I'm going to go
> further out on a limb, based on assorted things I've heard, and speculate
> that this is how Amiga handles it.)
Well I suppose you could call it an "extra processor", but it's not really.
Input triggers an interrupt, which stops the current process and gives the
OS control so it can process whatever even has caused the interrupt
(keypress, mouse click, I/O completion etc).
> : background render will continue in the bg and will get almost 100% of
> : the CPU time and the user will never know the difference.
>
> : If the frontmost task requires CPU time in a CMT system, it will get
> : it - to the exclusion of (nearly, depending on implementation)
> : everything else. If that's what you want, wonderful. If it isn't,
>
> Not at all. If something in the background also requires CPU time, and
both
> apps are written properly, they will constantly yield to each other, and
> thus get as good a split of processor time as they likely would under PMT.
For a CMT system to behave identically to a PMT system, several things must
occur:
1. All processes must be totally bug free wrt to infinite loops, error
conditions or anything that might potentially cause them to stop.
2. All applications must have been tuned and tested to work together in all
possible combinations
3. Similarly, all applications must also have been tuned to work with all
possible combination of hardware devices.
Now, I'm sure that's theoretically possible, but hopefully you'll agree the
chances of it happening on any real life general purpose system is so close
to zero it doesn't matter.
> : you don't have the leeway (in MacOS, at least) to do a whole lot to
> : change that. A render put in the bg under MacOS generally dies or
> : gets very poor performance, and the system can become (depending on
> : software) jumpy or 'uneven' as a result.
>
> It slows down POV-Ray for me, but not excessively. On less co-operative
> settings (the Mac POV-Ray is conscious of the CMT environment, and lets
you
> 're-nice' the software in its settings) it sometimes jumps to the
foreground,
> which is admittedly disconcerting.
> Other apps I have which 'render' things do such tricks as reducing their
bit
> depth and dithering in order to reduce their demand on the CPU, conscious
of
> the fact that they have been backgrounded.
The whole point is that on a PMT system none of these "tricks" or fiddling
is necessary. The application gets whatever CPU time is left over.
> : If the frontmost task requires CPU time in a PMT system, it will get
> : it - and everything else that's sleeping will get no CPU time, and the
> : system's idle time indicator (Hi, Chad!) will not increase anymore as
> : the system devotes all CPU time to the active app, and anything else
> : that also required CPU time would "share" the CPU time cleanly;
> : depending on process and priority levels, you might automatically get
> : a 50/50 split, which could be changed at will (I can effectively get a
>
> Again, properly written CMT apps can acheive that split, and exceptionally
> well written ones can allow you to make those changes.
And even badly written apps on a PMT system will still work more
efficiently, more reliably and more consistently with *no need* to make
those changes.
> : CMT system in W2k/NT by making a fg task 'real-time', which is a
> : misnomer but gets the point across). The user will freely be able
> : to switch between applications with little or no impact to the
> : processes that require CPU time, while also being able to interact
> : freely and without penalty with apps that don't need much CPU time
> : (like, say, a newsreader). That's a MAJOR advantage of PMT.
>
> "Without penalty"? What about all the extra CPU time the OS itself has to
> use up to figure out how to schedule everything?
That might have been an issue on an 8Mhz 68000. On anything faster than
today's average scientific calculator, its irrelevant. The "penalty" is so
small you probably can't even measure it, let alone notice it. The benefits
*far* outweigh the costs.
> The thing about the newsreader you give as an example is that the
*average*
> need for CPU time is indeed low, but the *peak* is not. The app sits
around
> most of the time, but needs to get several cycles after each keystroke.
The
> OS doesn't know when the next keystroke is coming.
It doesn't need to, that's what interrupts are for.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:57:29 GMT
On 16 Jul 2000 23:30:22 GMT, Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In the case of RIPEM, this isn't as much of a consideration...since the
>whole discussion is about the law as applied to the specific case of
>distributing a program that links to a library, not supplied with the
>program. ...or is it? If this were to be litigated, do you think it'd be a
>case of failing on the law, or failing on the facts?
I'd guess law since during the original discussion there didn't seem to
be many facts in dispute.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 17 Jul 2000 00:54:11 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:36:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Without your emotional insistence on beginning your response in this
>way, your message would have been much more likely to receive a reaction
>based on its technical value. You are sabotaging yourself, Gary, and I
>think you should ask yourself why.
Since he has nothing to learn from you, it's hardly self-sabotage. And
since you're so good at logic, I won't point out the obvious implication
of that statement.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:07:32 +1000
"Karl Knechtel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ray Chason ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[chomp]
> : To get this kind of responsiveness from CMT, you need to break up a CPU-
> : bound task. For a spreadsheet, that might mean recalculating some
number
> : of cells, and then yielding the CPU. It sounds simple, but to do this,
> : you have to save your place. Also, the need to break up the task
distorts
> : the flow of the code; another programmer will have a harder time
figuring
> : out how it works. You get higher development costs, more bugs, and
longer
> : time to market. It is unwise to make the developers' job harder than it
> : already is.
>
> To get that kind of responsiveness from PMT, you have to let the OS break
> up a CPU-bound task for you. It has to save your place and distort the
flow
> of your code. I hardly see how that's different.
Crikey, another Max. Really, if you're going to jump into these discussions
and start throwing assertions around, its useful to have a reasonably
working knowledge on the basics - it saves us having to explain it over and
over again.
In a CMT system each application programmer has to decide where it is safe
to "break" their code and implement the necessary algorithms and conditions
to do so. Even then, they can't be guaranteed it will work in the most
efficient manner in any given sitaution.
In a PMT system the programmer doesn't have to do any such thing - the OS
does all the work.
> By "flow" of the code I mean CPU utilization over time.
An odd definition. The CPU is utilised far more efficiently in a PMT
system, because an app that isn't doing anything doesn't sit idling along
burning up cycles until it decides to give the processor back.
> If you're talking
> about the structure of the source code itself, my understanding is that
> doing proper CMT on the Mac is a simple matter of making frequent calls to
> the YieldThread() Toolbox routine.
How frequent, though ? How frequently should you yield to give other apps a
fair go ? How long should you take between yields to make sure your
application is responsive ? How can you know what ever other developer is
going to do ?
> I hardly see how that makes for a
> significant "distortion".
Because, simply, on a PMT system there is no "distortion", on a CMT system
there is.
> : You claim that an application that doesn't properly yield will "bomb in
> : the marketplace." If that's true for Mac applications, then it is user
> : demand for quality that has kept up the quality of Mac apps. PC users
seem
> : to accept any old POS as long as it has the word "Microsoft" on the
> : package.
>
> I agree. How is that an argument in your favour? What's wrong with "user
> demand for quality"?
Is fairly easily demonstrated to be quite low.....
> : And user pickiness does not have to go away just because Mac OS X adopts
> : PMT. And if PMT could turn a dogpile like Windoze 3.1 into something
> : almost usable, imagine what it can do for a Mac.
>
> You still haven't established your claim that PMT is so largely
responsible
> for Win95's improvement over Win 3.1. Have you ever actually had to *use*
> Windows 3.1? I have. Believe me, Win95 has a *lot* of advantages that have
> *nothing* to do with internal details like the multitasking system. (I can
> hardly believe I just defended Win95.)
It is the only reason Win95 is more responsive than Win3.1. It's one of the
reasons it's more stable.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:09:52 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you. That's quite illuminating. Interesting, don't you think,
> >> that while many people were saying "the app decides when to yield, not
> >> the OS", they probably thought this is just what they were explaining,
> >> but none of them thought to put it like that. Perhaps this is why I
> >> kept getting flamed for not paying attention when they thought they had
> >> answered my questions; none of them realized their answers were
> >> misleading. It isn't the OS controlling the multi-tasking which makes
> >> the difference; its the notion of a maximum quantum.
> >>
> >> That makes a lot more sense. Multi-tasking without a maximum quantum;
> >> now that *would* be a stupid idea. ;-)
> >
> >So you finally agree that CMT is a stupid idea for a general purpose OS!
>
> Not *entirely*, no. I was being rhetorical. I didn't think you'd need
> to double-check that I knew what I was saying, but I can understand how
> you would think you should.
>
> CMT without a convention for limiting a processes' maximum CPU time
> *would* be a stupid idea.
*sigh*.
CMT with such a feature wouldn't be CMT, it would be PMT, by definition.
How many times is this going to have to be explained ?
> I'm still not clear on if this is the actual
> problem assumed to occur on CMT systems.
It's not an assumption, it's an *inherent design feature*.
> My post yesterday fantasizing
> about a "three level model" for scheduling to replace the monolithic
> system found in PMT should indicate that I think CMT/PMT is something of
> a false dichotomy. Complete lack of a quantum is certainly an
> unacceptable implementation for a general purpose OS, yes.
Say what ? What is "monolithic" about PMT ? What's this "three level
model" you're talking about ?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:05:39 -0500
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:54:08 GMT, Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:10:02 GMT, Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >>>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>Windo's is weal made.
>> >>>
>> >>>Good one Tim. You mean it makes you come out in a rash?
>> >>>You must admit, this troll does have his moments.
>> >>
>> >>I mean its made good, not like LIE-nux that is maid by commy's and
>> >>their all stoppid hippy's that cant' make a hole OS.
>> >
>> >Ah, a response from Tim Palmer. Does this mean I've arrived?
>> >I'd say that Windows was more of a "hole OS" than Linux. Linux
>> >holes tend to get plugged very quickly.
>>
>> ...but LIE-nux has more hoals to plug.
>
>damn, you're dense.
But its' troo! You LIE-nux LIARS clame that LIE-nux gets its' bug's fix'd faster
because thear are
so meny people working on it, but LIE-nux gets new bug's put into it even faster than
they get fix'd,
because thear is no orginnizatian.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >jim
>> >--
>> >http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
>> > "Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:05:49 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:07:40 -0500, Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK OK OK I just have to put my 2$ worth in (inflation and my inability to
>find a "cents" key)...BUT why would someone knowledgeable try to install
>Win2000?
To get Active Derectary.
>(And I am a Windows user myself and only use Linux occasionally)
>Philo
>
>Jeff Hummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking
>at
>> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
>> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
>> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time,
>and
>> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
>> wait to learn!
>> I'm converted.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:21:18 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >The reason he is being "an asshole" is because you simply refuse, despite
> >numerous suggestions, to even learn the absolute and most basic
differences
> >between PMT and CMT.
>
> I never "refused" to learn anything in my life.
Well, these last few days must have been pretty rough with that new
experience.
> If your explanations
> weren't clear enough for me to learn from, that's your fault, not mine.
Bullshit. The onus of learning is on the student, not the teacher. Whilst
you've been subtly trying to blame us for your ignorance, lack of knowledge
and refusal to do anything on your own to try and rectify the situation,
no-one's buying it.
Perhaps I'm somewhat strange in this, but if I express an opinion on a topic
I know that I know nothing about, and a half-dozen people imeediately
disagree, then I take that as a sign that I need to go and do a little bit
of research.
Hell, scratch that, I'd never express an opinion on something I didn't know
anything about. It's tantamount to lying.
> Remember, I'm the one who didn't already have the knowledge necessary to
> know what assumptions the explanations were based on, such as the fact
> that no maximum quantum whatsoever is implemented by convention in a CMT
> system.
Which is your fault, not ours.
> Much like, I still figure, most people just took their word for it when
> they were taught that CMT is not feasible.
No-one I know is taught that CMT is not feasible, because in certain
situations it is. Similarly, no one is taught to assume CMT==bad,
PMT==good, as you seem to imply with your snide "engineer" remarks. The
opinions you are getting showered with were created from an understanding of
the issues involved.
Even a basic understanding of the differences should make it plain as day
why CMT is bad on a general purpose desktop system.
> Much like those who insist
> the Mac was a stupid idea. All I did was point out that there seemed to
> be some inconsistencies in that argument.
I haven't yet seen anyone make those arguments.
> The reason you and Gary are being assholes, I figure, is because you
> simply refuse, despite numerous suggestions, to ever make the effort to
> teach.
I'm not wasting my time teaching someone who doesn't want to learn. Given
you refuse to go out and spend even a minute of your time doing basic
research on the topic, that's the impression I'm getting. There are
*thousands* of websites that will tell you everything you need to know, from
1st-year CS undergraduate level all the way through to advanced, nitty
gritty implementation details.
> You expect your explanations are sufficient for those who don't
> understand something, simply because they make sense to someone who
> already knows what is being explained. But obviously your ability to
> teach someone something they didn't already know is severely limited.
We expect a certain amount of basic knowledge. Just like I'd expect someone
wandering into a senior calculus class to have a reasonable grasp on the
basics of algebra, I expect someone leaping into the middle of a discussion
on the advantages and disadvantages of CMT vs PMT to have a grasp of the
fundamental and basic differences between the two.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:13:57 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:43:28 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >> "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8kn61l$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > : Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> > : : I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do
> >> with the
> >> > : : amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT
> >> scheduler
> >> > : : have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
> >> >
> >> > I should have said, as someone who had been assembly programming 8080s
> >> > running a 1 MHz, a 8 MHz 68000 did not seem remotely slow ;-).
> >>
> >> But to run a GUI system like the Mac ?
> >
> >On my computer, X is taking up about 1-2% of a 233 MHz CPU, with spikes
> >when I change virtual desktops (Did/does Mac have those?) That's about
> >2-5 MHz (although I don't know how that scales).
>
> At what resolution and what color depth?
1024 x 768 8-bit color 60 Hz.
> The Amiga managed a GUI and
> PMT very well in 1985, but back then things were very different - with
> 512k you could easily 'get' a full-featured (for the time) BBS
> terminal (remember those? ANSI-terminals for your modem? Run by
> private individuals, often out of a spare room in their house, with
> all of one (!!) phone line?)
No, I never did that.
>
> CPU chip speed didn't enter into the picture. It just wasn't an
> issue. RAM was the issue.
In some cases, it still is.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:06:00 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:07:40 -0500, Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK OK OK I just have to put my 2$ worth in (inflation and my inability to
>find a "cents" key)...BUT why would someone knowledgeable try to install
>Win2000?
To get Active Derectary.
>(And I am a Windows user myself and only use Linux occasionally)
>Philo
>
>Jeff Hummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking
>at
>> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
>> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
>> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time,
>and
>> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
>> wait to learn!
>> I'm converted.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:06:10 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:07:40 -0500, Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK OK OK I just have to put my 2$ worth in (inflation and my inability to
>find a "cents" key)...BUT why would someone knowledgeable try to install
>Win2000?
To get Active Derectary.
>(And I am a Windows user myself and only use Linux occasionally)
>Philo
>
>Jeff Hummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking
>at
>> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
>> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
>> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time,
>and
>> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
>> wait to learn!
>> I'm converted.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:06:20 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:07:40 -0500, Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK OK OK I just have to put my 2$ worth in (inflation and my inability to
>find a "cents" key)...BUT why would someone knowledgeable try to install
>Win2000?
To get Active Derectary.
>(And I am a Windows user myself and only use Linux occasionally)
>Philo
>
>Jeff Hummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking
>at
>> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
>> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
>> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time,
>and
>> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
>> wait to learn!
>> I'm converted.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:06:30 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:07:40 -0500, Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK OK OK I just have to put my 2$ worth in (inflation and my inability to
>find a "cents" key)...BUT why would someone knowledgeable try to install
>Win2000?
To get Active Derectary.
>(And I am a Windows user myself and only use Linux occasionally)
>Philo
>
>Jeff Hummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking
>at
>> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
>> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
>> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time,
>and
>> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
>> wait to learn!
>> I'm converted.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:06:41 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:07:40 -0500, Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK OK OK I just have to put my 2$ worth in (inflation and my inability to
>find a "cents" key)...BUT why would someone knowledgeable try to install
>Win2000?
To get Active Derectary.
>(And I am a Windows user myself and only use Linux occasionally)
>Philo
>
>Jeff Hummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking
>at
>> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
>> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
>> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time,
>and
>> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
>> wait to learn!
>> I'm converted.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
