Linux-Advocacy Digest #162, Volume #28 Tue, 1 Aug 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (Gary Hallock)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Rauni)
Re: trying to break a patent ("Nick")
Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> >and do everything for me, the stupid user. Unfortunately when something
>goes
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...damn that Intel deciding that the hardware having no real
> >> >> >> clue or control as to what is going on in system is a bad idea.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Look at Plug N Play and tell me which is better. I prefer labotomized
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, I've never had PCI fail me in this respect.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've run out of XT resources but that's a more fundemental
> >> >> design flaw in PC's rather than a flaw of PnP.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a quite solvable problem if you design with it in mind.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not necessarily a Windows-ism as you seem to think.
> >> >
> >> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation in any
> >> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In "solving" it,
> >> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
> >>
> >> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
> >>
> >> pseudo-pnp does.
> >>
> >> That's a BIG difference.
> >
> >Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
> is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this stuff?
> >> Besides, there's really not much that Redhat even automates.
> >> What it does manage to automate is primarily due to the relative
> >> robustness of PCI.
> >>
> >> However, Slackware was doing ISA pnp in '95. So this phenomenon
> >> that you attribute to Bughat is not limited to it. Slackware also
> >> had the first effective network control panel applet as well
> >> (also by '95 or earlier).
> >
> >You're nonsensically mixing two separate points I made again. PnP was an
> >illustration. It got in my way the same way RedHat did. I didn't complain
> >about PnP in RedHat.
>
> Both are examples of what little automation exists in any Linux
> distribution.
Make up your mind. You were telling me before about how PnP's implementation
is OS-independent:
"You're still suffering from the false notion that pnp is an OS design issue
rather than a hardware design issue."
(an untrue assertion based on more words you've shoved in my mouth, by the
way)
and now you're taking the opposite tact in yet another attempt to shove words
in my mouth. Talk about inconsistency!
> Since so little automation does exist, surely you
> were also refering to the automation of device configuration.
What I was surely refering [sic] to is what I actually referred to, namely
RedHat installation routines. Do you have some psychological need to pretend
I said things that I have not? Seek some help.
> Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
It tends to be difficult to follow when you delete the explanation and fill in
the blanks with what you wanted to read.
> [deletia]
See what I mean?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: 1 Aug 2000 18:05:34 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The laws of physics (entropy) dictate there is no such thing as a free
>lunch. For there to be one, the perpetual motion machine would have to
>be a reality, and it is not.
When you talk about perpetual motion, you compare the energy to
the machine at rest. However the machinery of business
never rests. If it isn't using existing software it will
probably be re-inventing it badly.
>Even if the people using the software get it for free, get tech support
>for free, and even get people to use it on their behalf for free -
>there is still a cost - borne by SOMEONE. it's not free.
Yes, but the cost for the 2nd and subsequent copies is next
to nothing, and when source is available some of the people
who receive copies are likely to contribute back enhancements.
>There is no such thing as a free lunch
Sometimes it is better than free when it doesn't cost
anything to give it away and you get something back
in return.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 1 Aug 2000 23:06:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You are not load balancing SQL.
>> >>
>> >> i.e., you are lying again.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Can you prove this? Im currently working on a system like
>> > this so if its all in my imagination I would love to know.
>>
>> Yes, I can prove it. But first you are going to have to explain
>> what you understand by the term "load balancing", with respect
>> to a DBMS. If we don't start with a definition then I cannot
>> prove anything because you are simply going to redefine "load
>> balancing" to mean something else.
>
> You provide the definition then. We'll assess it's validity by citing
> impartial industry sources.
Its worth noting at this point that microsoft's version of load balancing
has exactly nothing to do with anyone elses.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:09:35 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Drestin Black wrote:
> you are making a poor asumption. I read the entire post (and the posts to
> the list as well as other articles about this) and am fully aware that it's
> possible to write a program like this that runs under Windows. Duh...
You really are dense, aren't you? Here is a summary of the what was said:
Drestin:
Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below) which
will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk, thus
rendering all data inaccessible.
Arthur responded to THIS part of your post with:
Windows has had this feature for years. I've
had Win95 destroy it's partition table several
times, all by itself, with no input from me.
I've even had scandisk do it.
Drestin:
Apparently, however, there are other
variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its firmware, thus
turning it into a true brick.
Arthur responded to THIS part of your post with:
Seems to be a problem in the ATA/IDE spec that
allows this. There's no reason Windows couldn't
do it either. Note that Linux doesn't actually
do this - you have to write and run code to make
it happen.
Drestin in response to Arthurs post:
you missed the point - this doesn't just trash partion tables or make data
inaccessible - it actually physically destroys the firmware - as in, IDE
drive => brick.
This last statement by you clearly indicates that you did not read Arthurs post
in full, or you simply chose to ignore it. Arthur clearly did understand that
the firmware could be destroyed.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Rauni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:14:00 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:56:25 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MH wrote:
>>
>> > >The richest 10% of Americans own 90% of the wealth, and thus
>> > >are 81 times wealthier on the average than the poorest 90%,
>> > >which collectively owns 10% of the wealth. That's the
>> >
>> > You are mixing and matching income with "wealth" or "assets". All
>> > the assertion above proves is that the richest people tend not to
>> > spend all of their money.
>>
>> That may be for the simple fact that they have a disproportionate amount to
>> spend?
>> Sliding ratio \ proportion. Beyond a point the rich have no reason to spend
>> more money. Unless they just enjoy throwing it away. But they still have it
>> to spend. At a much lesser point, the average income household in this
>> country can't spend anymore because they simply don't have it.
>>
>> > Now the upper tax brackets are at a marginal tax rate of I'd say at least
>> > 40%. So if the top 10% make up 90% of the nations income, then 36% of the
>> > nations income is shared by everyone ( in fact the people on the bottom
>> > would get a better share of that 36% ).
>> >
>> > >Yes, but a 30:1 pay ratio is enough, not 1,000 or 1,000,000:1.
>> >
>> > Here, you seem to be outright confusing pay ratios with ownership of
>> > assets. Don't forget, that the guy who is paid the higher amount gives
>> > more than 40% of it back to the country in income taxes.
>>
>> Please, please, please. Show me someone in the top 10% and I'll show you
>> someone who NEVER
>> pays close to the 40% rate. The tax laws are written for the rich. The more
>> they have, the more they can write off. Of course it takes money to make
>> money. Tax accountants, lawyers, so on and so on.
>
>The top 5% of wage earners pay %50 of all US taxes.
>
>The top 10% of wage earners pay %90 of all US taxes.
>
>[of course, high earnings is not wealth. Trust Fund babies like
>the Rockefellers and Kennedys hardly pay anything because they
>don't have much *income*]
What a stupid fuck you are. These people who live off their
investments...even if it is inherited, have to file their taxes four
times a year. More proof that Aaron doesn't actually *know* any
wealthy people.
------------------------------
From: "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: trying to break a patent
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:15:08 GMT
> Trying to prove you 'own' the intellectual property that founds the
> basis of the Internet, or networking in general, has not proven easy for
> anyone. I would say you have a good chance of 'breaking' this patent
> unless there is some other aspect to the problem.
British Telecom is currently waving their patent about hyperlink technology
about so this'll be very interesting...
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:20:01 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:49:33 GMT, Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mikey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Just as long as they can't run evil VBA scripts. :)
>>
>> Nick wrote:
>> >
>> > They're both crap. Dump them both and use StarOffice 5.2
>
>A Sun [StarDivision] product running VB scripts. Brings a shiver down my
>spine just thinking of it.
>
>Enough of this blasphemy! :)
It's not the language, it's the execution enviroment.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:21:06 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:45:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2000 12:41:11 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quicken2000 could be bundled with the machine and running
>>>>>> via vmware or wine. Ardhi bundled a Mac version of Quicken
>>>>>> with Executor for awhile.
>>>>>
>>>>>/sarcasm
>>>>>Yeah, that would sell *really* well.
>>>>>/sarcasm off
>>>>
>>>> It all depends on how transparently it is done.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe in a few years, but not today.
>>
>>VMWare runs everything just about perfectly. If it were just a
>>bit cheaper I could see vendors bundling it, especially now that
>>most machines have plenty of disk space.
>
>And somehow you'd get it all working so an average user (remember, not
>a computergeek) will be able to understand it?
Quicken did.
>
>Again...maybe in a few years; not today.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:22:23 GMT
On 1 Aug 2000 17:52:24 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>> VMWare runs everything just about perfectly. If it were just a
>>>>> bit cheaper I could see vendors bundling it, especially now that
>>>>> most machines have plenty of disk space.
>>>>
>>>> Would Intuit provide support to a customer running Quicken in VMWare?
>>>
>>>I don't see why they wouldn't - or why any particular support
>>>would be necessary unless you lose your CD or something. If
>>>you want to be paranoid about being able to run under normal
>>>conditions you can configure VMWare to run from a partition
>>>that can be booted under its native OS. That way if you need
>>>help from someone who doesn't understand your configuration
>>>you can change it.
>>
>>But an entry level user would never know how to do that, would they?
>
>Every entry level windows user I've seen learned how to reboot
>right away. I think most could handle making one extra choice
>there.
No, there would merely be a default configuration so that the
end user wouldn't have to strain their brain.
Unix has been automating these sorts of things before DOS existed,
nevermind Windows.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 1 Aug 2000 23:25:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:03:15 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, I guess we heard two completely different stories on this then.
>> What I heard was that there was a divide by zero erro and the entire
>> network of NT machines onboard the ship went down. Whether that was
>> inferred to the people that spread that information (news/media) is
>> unknown to me, all I know is what I heard of the situation. The only
>> ones that really know are the ones that were there I guess.
>
>Well, you can read into it anything you want, but to me it was plainly
>obvious that:
>
>- This was a client/server app with several clients attached
>- It was fed information from some type of database
>- The clients were dependant upon the server for information
> and functionality
>- The server app had poor bounds checking, among other things
>- The server got a bad apple from the database and bombed
>- Consequently, the clients all bombed because they couldn't
> connect to the server.
>
>Now, where out of that do you get that "NT BSOD'd" or "NT
>crashed".
>From the press reports that say "crashed all LAN consoles" and "NT error"
>If I run sendmail or qpop, for example, and all these pop3 clients
>are connected, and I stop the mail services, and then try to
>access pop3 or smtp from that server and my client can't send
>mail and reports an error, should I then say, by your logic that
>"*nix crashed" or "the whole system crashed"?
Well the press reports said "crashed all LAN consoles" and "NT
error". And if it was only database clients that crashed, how did the
stop the engines??
>There was no mention that the OS crashed. NT certainly cannot
>be brought down by a user mode app except in extreme circumstances.
Sure it can. NT is designed to work only with properly written apps.
>You do understand the difference between an APPLICATION and an
>OPERATING SYSTEM, do you not?
>
We do. Microsoft doesn't.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:26:45 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:45:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 20:17:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>In article
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:22:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article
>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:09:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>> >
>>> >-- snip --
>>> >
>>> >> > How are they going to tell? How would they know the difference
>>> >> > between an efx win32 variant and some Window Manager variant?
>>> >>
>>> >> They'll ask the salesdroid - Can I run Quicken 2000 on this? get
>>> >> an answer of "no" and immediately move on to a PC that can do so.
>>> >> Salesdroid soon has enough of this and stops pushing Linux box,
>>> >> figuring (correctly) that people would rather pay $50 more or so
>>> >> for a WinXX box that can run their software.
>>> >
>>> >A "salesdroid" would probably react as you indicate, but someone even
>>> >the least bit knowledgeable as a sales*person* would reply, "it *can*
>>> >run Quicken using an add-on called Wine, but there are alternatives,
>>> >such as GNUCash which may actually work better for you. For example,
>>> >if
>>>
>>> ROTFL! In a consumer box? You're kidding, right?
>>>
>>> The "salesperson" wouldn't be a salesperson at CUSA if he knew all of
>>> that - he'd be doing computer support and making 2x as much $$.
>>
>>Go ahead and laugh. The point is that a pre-loaded and pre-configured
>>Linux box could very well address the hypothetical scenario which
>>***YOU*** came up with, your snottiness notwithstanding.
>
>No way. Not in such a way that anyone new to computers could figure
>out.
Such a person would have equal trouble with WinDOS.
WIMP under Linux is no different than WIMP under DOS or WIMP
under MacOS or WIMP under GEM.
>
>>> >you prefer to use double-entry, GNUCash supports it. And you won't
>>> >have to buy a new version every year; just download a new version
>>> >when you want for free." Then the sales*person* could do a demo of
>>> >exporting a Quicken account onto a floppy and importing into GNUCash,
>>> >just to illustrate how painless it can be.
>>>
>>> LOL. That's a riot. And you expect a normal retail customer (not a
>>> computergeek) to use that?
>>
>>I see you fail to give a concrete example of why not. You just assume
>>that Joe and Jane can't handle using a floppy disk. I can only wonder
>>why.
>
>It's not the floppy disk bit that I am suggesting wouldn't be done.
>
>>> Where's the support telephone number when they can't get it working?
>>
>>In the documentation that comes with the box. Or must you always be led
>>by the hand?
>
>I see. So GnuCash has a support line now? Face it - people have a
Can we get a testimonial from the Intuit support line?
Otherwise claiming it as a benefit is absurd.
>huge comfort level with certain applications, and by and large they
>don't run under Linux.
That depends on the particular situation.
Besides, you started out your response speaking of a 'clean slate'
end user and now have switched to a 'legacy' end user as it suits
you.
>
>>> >The point here is that what you describe is the network effect of a
>>> >monopoly, and what I have provided is a fresh perspective.
>>>
>>> Or I'm being realistic in what a normal customer would expect and
>>> would purchase, and you aren't.
>>
>>No, you are locked into MS-Think and I'm not.
>
>Me? No. Normal retail customers. The type of people you're talking
>about are computergeeks, and I don't suggest they can't run Linux.
WIMP is just WIMP, even under Unix.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 1 Aug 2000 23:34:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:47:43 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>More than likely, their going to use an embedded version of the
>OS either on special PC hardware with redundant systems, or
>a different platform and MS wrote a special HAL for them (which
>probably isn't that difficult for MS by now).
>
I'm a software developer for man-rated real time embedded
applications, and where I work there isn't one engineer even thinking
of using any version of Windows in embedded applications, special HAL
or not.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:35:47 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >> >and do everything for me, the stupid user. Unfortunately when something
>goes
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ...damn that Intel deciding that the hardware having no real
>> >> >> >> clue or control as to what is going on in system is a bad idea.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Look at Plug N Play and tell me which is better. I prefer labotomized
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually, I've never had PCI fail me in this respect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've run out of XT resources but that's a more fundemental
>> >> >> design flaw in PC's rather than a flaw of PnP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a quite solvable problem if you design with it in mind.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not necessarily a Windows-ism as you seem to think.
>> >> >
>> >> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation in any
>> >> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In "solving" it,
>> >> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
>> >>
>> >> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
>> >>
>> >> pseudo-pnp does.
>> >>
>> >> That's a BIG difference.
>> >
>> >Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>> You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
>> is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
>
>What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this stuff?
Personal experience, shared experience.
Very little of it indicates any problem with modern pnp.
PCI is quite robust. Why seek to avoid it if there isn't
some sort of macho stupidity going on? Why seek out the
extra work? Why seek out the extra trouble?
>
>> >> Besides, there's really not much that Redhat even automates.
>> >> What it does manage to automate is primarily due to the relative
>> >> robustness of PCI.
>> >>
>> >> However, Slackware was doing ISA pnp in '95. So this phenomenon
>> >> that you attribute to Bughat is not limited to it. Slackware also
>> >> had the first effective network control panel applet as well
>> >> (also by '95 or earlier).
>> >
>> >You're nonsensically mixing two separate points I made again. PnP was an
>> >illustration. It got in my way the same way RedHat did. I didn't complain
>> >about PnP in RedHat.
>>
>> Both are examples of what little automation exists in any Linux
>> distribution.
>
>Make up your mind. You were telling me before about how PnP's implementation
>is OS-independent:
>
>"You're still suffering from the false notion that pnp is an OS design issue
>rather than a hardware design issue."
>(an untrue assertion based on more words you've shoved in my mouth, by the
>way)
>
>and now you're taking the opposite tact in yet another attempt to shove words
>in my mouth. Talk about inconsistency!
It's not an inconsistency if you have a clue what PCI does
and does not do. PCI doesn't load your drivers for you or
tell your X server what your video card is.
Redhat does that. It's one of the few things I can think of
that constitutes "treating the end user like a moron" that
springs to mind.
Your examples would eliminate the need for guesswork, if you
actually mentioned them.
>
>> Since so little automation does exist, surely you
>> were also refering to the automation of device configuration.
>
>What I was surely refering [sic] to is what I actually referred to, namely
>RedHat installation routines. Do you have some psychological need to pretend
>I said things that I have not? Seek some help.
Beyond a little device driver loading, mainly dependent on PCI,
Redhat doesn't do any more automation in the installer than
Slackware does.
Redhat just takes advantage of a robust hardware solution.
>
>> Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
>
>It tends to be difficult to follow when you delete the explanation and fill in
>the blanks with what you wanted to read.
>
>> [deletia]
>
>See what I mean?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
