Linux-Advocacy Digest #688, Volume #29 Mon, 16 Oct 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Astroturfing ("JS/PL")
Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (Keith Peterson)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("AAA Guy")
Re: Astroturfing (Ian Davey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:37:41 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:04:03 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I couldn't even if I wanted to. It doesn't have the applications I
> need to run my business. No surprise.
If you were really running a business, you wouldn't find the time to
write hundreds of postings in this group. You're probably some sad,
git dying a slow social death on a couch somewhere, wasting the time
when you coul go out and make friends on posting to this group
whenever the US Agitprop machine isn't currently pumping any pathetic
cleavage-ridden soap operas down your TV cable.
You must be spending many hours posting here every day and you claim to run
a business! Hell, *I* hardly find half an hour a day for all of
Usenet, and I don't even *work*!
I should be the one with too much time on my hands, but for some
reason, you are. I wonder why.
mawa
--
To craunch a marmoset.
-- Pedro Carolino, "English as She is Spoke"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:06:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:39:49 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:57:40 +0100
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> According to Yahoo (and "SHELL EXTENSION CITY"), the DOOM System
>> >> Administration Tool is at
>> >> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/
>> >> which timed out when I tried to fetch it. I know of no mirrors.
>> >
>> >I got 200k/s out of that site :-) If you want a copy email me, and I
>> >could email it to you.
>>
>> Might have been a temporary glitch; it's working fine now.
>
>
>I've just turned it in to a useful tool --- it can't kill itself.
>
>install the sources.
>
>open pr_process.c
>change line 733 so it says "kill -s SIGINT %d" as opposed to "kill -9
>%d"
>open i_main.c
>put in these lines before D_DoomMain() :
>
> static struct sigaction act;
> ...
>
> act.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
> sigfillset(&(act.sa_mask));
> sigaction(SIGINT, &act, NULL);
>
>Now that it can't kill itself, it is much more useful.
One can also compare m_pid to getpid(), of course; that might
be slightly simpler. :-) But it's a thought.
Mind you, I'm going to have to work on it a bit; apparently
the patches don't match up with my sources (I'm using "BOOM",
a modified DOOM engine that has some very nice features,
most notably a variable-sized view window).
I'd also like to combine the two. DOOM when I want to play,
but DOOM -sysmanage or something equally silly when I want
to play system manager. Or something equally silly.
Looks like I've a little work ahead of me. Oh well. :-)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:06:47 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> When I said use your brain, I meant use it, not repeat the same stuff
in
> >> detail. There is probably something very badly wrong with your
> >> installation. C corrupted filesystem or a bad harddisk or something.
> >> There are kernel options to allow Linux to see more memory.
> >> Try mem=256M or something like it.
> >
> >That's the point, my objective isn't to hack the kernel, it is to insert
a
> >disk, hover over the return key for a few minutes and have the thing work
in
>
> You don't need to hack the kernel, there's a point in the Mandrake 7.1
install
> where you get to enter how much memory you have. All you do is amend the
> 64MB value in the text box and change it to 256MB. Not rocket science.
I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when the
install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
amount available.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:12:54 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:50:39 GMT, Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > > How about a decent newsreader with scorefile ?
> > > > > Electronics programs, schematic and PCB cad programs ?
> > > > > Flowcharts
> > > > > Html servers
> > > > > Irc servers
> > > > > Ftp servers
> > > > > Programming, editors, compilers, profilers, debugers
> > > > > Irc clients
> > > > >
> > > > > No ? how sad, Linux comes with these and *thousands* more "FREE
> > SOFTWARE"
> > > > > programs.
> > > >
> > > > yeah?...really good...eeehh now, the problem is that no "end-user"
wants
> > any
> > > > of these, unless youre a geek of course....
> > > Or an electrical engineer (in the case of spice)
> > >
> > > Or a scientist doing a remotely computer based science (physice,
> > > computer science, chemistry, engineering, biology) all can have
> > > simulation programs written for them.
> > >
> > > Oh, yes. I forgot, you must be a geek since you use a nwsreader (see
> > > what exactly you said geek to).
> >
> > hmm...shure, i think you now what i talked about...
> > compilers (gcc,fortran, lisp, blaha blaha) editors (vi, pico, emacs)
servers
> > (wu-ftp, apache, sendmail) are things a examples of what a "end-user"
WONT
> > need to have installed AND doesnt have any use for....
>
> You suggested newsreaders too, since they were on thet list. Either
> you're a fool, or no-one on USENET is an end user. Hmmm. I think they're
> end users
>
> Besides, I'm an end user and I want a compiler.
> I'm an end user and I want a decent editor (vim)
> I'm an end user and I want apache.
>
> Have you got the message yet? Or it an end user to you someone wuo
> doesn't use the computer.
and you have still dont understand what i meant?
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:23:26 +0200
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
CNDG5.5236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > And I add : "- MS apps magically _still_ work."
>
> Yes because of the missing step - the obvious one - MS makes sure that
> their apps don't use the API. As I said I have no idea if it is true...
but
What do you do of the: Weevil: "As it also turns out, there are many, many
undocumented functions in almost all of their APIs. Do their products use
these undocumented functions? Yes, they do. " part ?
> it would make logical sense if MS really did use/remove/change the
> undocumented APIs.
But they are supposed to use them to churn out better apps than the
competitors, aren't they ?
> > Where did I miss a step ?
>
> Right in between them.
I'll have to disagree, re-read what i wrote.
> > > Do I beleive that an MS app may have used an undocumented
> > > API call at one point and then removed that call later? Yes.
>
> > By definition, if it's undocumented, it's not an API call, sinced the
API
> is
> > the visible interface to the OS. :)
>
> If an MS application makes use of it then it is by definition an API call.
Well, I'll have to disagree, AFAIK, the API is the documentad part of a set
of OS functions to be used by application developers. If it's not
documented, it's not part of the API. Can a developer infirm or confirm ?
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > That's why it's undocumented: it shouldn't be used. If you rely on it
and
> > it's removed, and your app breaks, it's your fault.
>
> I don't think anypne disagrees on this point. The only thing is that
> if itdoes get used and one group (MS) knows it is going away before
Shouldn't be used. 5 year old MS apps run even on Win2K.
> another group (any other developer) then one group (MS) has an
> unfair advantage.
Then don't use the functions, they are not documented for that very reason:
they are supposed to change or be done with at the OS vendor discretion, so
they are not to be used.
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > Maybe it's there for testing purposes until the OS vendor decides to
keep
> or
> > remove it. Or for compatibility purposes ?
>
> I would challenge you to find a call that is for "testing purposes" that
Lets' just say that it's a function that the OS vendor is not sure of wether
if said function will go to the API, be modified, or simply yanked out.
> an application could use to do something useful. Compatibility is
> much more likely.
>
> ..darcy
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 16 Oct 2000 14:29:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Schaumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: All I'm saying is that I'm sure that with a little bit of practice you
: will find yourself to be working much more efficiently using LaTeX than
: using word - you don't have to worry about what they document looks like
: while you're writing it.
: No more "highligth this, choose style, don't like it, choose another
: style, hit return 5 times, hit spacce 20 times, change font size
: blahblahblah".
Combine LaTeX with makefiles and CVS for even more productivity
goodness. Edit away for hours on end, do a commit and have
your editor do an update - instant collaboration and revision
control. I don't understand why people settle for so much less
by writing for looks instead of meaning...*shrug*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:37:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:27:46 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Why do my posts generate so much hate and semi-intelligent insults
>from the Linux world?
>
>Because you fear me that's why.
Actually, it's because we fear *Microsoft*. You, on the other
hand, are merely the bearer of bad tidings.
Of course, lots of people will shoot the messenger.... :-)
(I do wonder whether a package delivery company such as UPS,
DHL, or FedEx has more difficulties than most.)
>
>Unlike the typical WinTroll, I actually use current versions of the
>software I am exposing. I have used every single distribution up to
>and including Mandrake 7.1 and with the exception of Slackware they
>all suck in one way or another.
>Sorry but it is true.
>
>Why doesn't Slackware suck? Because it is not trying to be a half
>assed clone of Windows that's why. It is Linux, does not try to claim
>otherwise and stands on it's own for better or worse.
>I respect that. Slackware is Linux at it's best, like it or not, it is
>an honest attempt at the Linux philosophy and I like that.
>
>You yo-yo's are so caught up in your own pile of bullshit that you
>have not a clue as to what the rest of the world wants, needs or is
>asking for.
>
>You think desktop users want Linux?
>
>Think again. You can't even give it away.
You're right. Linux is not for the desktop. It makes a terrific
low-cost back-end server, of course (uptimes in *years* for *Windows*?
Riiiiiiiight; even NT/Win2k isn't quite there yet -- though it's close).
But a desktop has different characteristics. The simplest way to
put it? A desktop sits right next to one's elbow; if something
goes wrong, Push The Button or power-cycle it, and hope the
problem goes away. (Mind you, that's not the best solution, perhaps,
but it's by far the simplest.)
A server, on the other hand, is usually hidden in a small room
somewhere. Reliability here is paramount; Linux wins easily here.
But for a desktop? As long as it doesn't crash while the user is
doing that term paper, that complex business proposal, or the
picture that says a thousand words, it doesn't really matter.
And NT/Win2k is reliable enough.
Even in a server environment, NT/Win2k may well win. I am given
to understand that there are power strips with IP addresses, so
that a power cycle can be sent remotely. (Oh, the possibilities!)
Therefore, coupled with some sort of server farm failover, NT/Win2k
may be the ultimate winner here as well, especially if a policy
of rebooting each server once a week whether it wants it or not
can be implemented (and the system given a chance to write out
its caches first, if possible).
So maybe Linux won't be The Ultimate Winner. But I suspect that
it will in fact try very hard. :-)
>
>You think we want (taking Terry Porters list) Compilers, editors,
>schematic diagram thingies, flowchart programs? Think again.
What do you think we want?
I am a software engineer. I build software for a living.
If I have Linux on my desktop (and in fact I do!), I'd better
damn well have a compiler and editor on it. Not sure about
"schematic diagram thingies" and "flowchart programs", mind you.
g++ is more than adequate; Java works well, too. As for editing,
I use vi. Others use emacs. All are highly useful in skilled hands.
To be fair, I can say the same thing about VC++'s compiler
and editor. One thing I like about VC++'s IDE is that it
has auto-completion. I'm not sure how well it's implemented,
but it saves me a bit of time. I *have* had the IDE crash
on me, though, leaving me with a silly little popup list window
that can only be removed by logging out, AFAIK.
One thing I *don't* like about VC++ is that its GUI is fairly
stupid (a list of libraries implemented in a single-line text
widget? What the hell were they *thinking*?).
>
>Again you are a collective bunch of idiots with blinders on.
Yeah, you're right, we should all go back to Win2k or NT4 and use
it instead (yes, I have NT4 on my desktop, too -- 2 computers).
It's so much better than Linux because claire says so. :-)
>
>Linux is free. Yet you can't even give it away.
>Linux has had a LOT of positive press in the last year.
>
>Why is it not taking over the desktop?
Because Microsoft is in fact better for the desktop. Harder to manage,
more prone to viruses, less reliable, and harder to develop for.
But it is better. (The measurement of better? "More convenient",
of course. I can't really dispute that too much -- although I
do like KDE, if only because it doesn't get in my way, either.
But KDE doesn't have Office, and I haven't installed StarOffice.
The Linux machine is a hand-me-down and the disk isn't all that big.)
>
>Seems to me, we Windows users invest a lot of money in software and a
>free system would be a plus for us?
That's why Windows is still there. Lots of Windows software.
Return on Investment. If one switches to Linux, guess what? All
that software goes byebye!
Some of it might be replaced with freeware, though -- but not all of it.
Some of it might be runnable under WinE (http://www.winehq.com).
Much of it will be runnable under VmWare, but that's a form of cheating
as VmWare actually emulates a full-fledged PC computer-within-a-computer.
Therefore, one isn't really getting rid of Windows, but encapsulating it.
(Not such a bad thing, in some respects.)
>
>So what's the deal?
>
>The deal is Linux sucks at 99 percent of what the average person wants
>or needs a computer to do.
Define "average". I think you need to recognize that there are
several sets of clients. Only one -- remote-access system administrators --
that I can think of might want Linux; for the rest it most likely will
be a toss-up.
>
>You have half assed Windows clones that neither perfom as well nor
>have the features of the equivilant Windows programs. In some cases
>you don't have any equivilant at all (a decent browser).
>
>You fear me, because I have the facts, have used Linux and have come
>to the same conclusion that legions of others have come to. Linux is
>nice, but Windows is better. I just choose to expose this Linux scam
>for what it is. A scam.
>
>So, unlike Terry Porter who got pissed off back in 1997 at Windows, I
>will continue to try current versions of Linux and Windows and maybe,
>just maybe, someday I will switch to Linux.
I wouldn't bother. Use whatever works for you. That's what "you"
is all about.
Or you can switch to BeOS, iMac/MacOS, Amiga (if it comes back), FreeBSD,
Freedos (beta), Freedows (when it comes out -- an interesting project,
that, but it's in the specification stage at the moment, IIRC), or
whatever is the most appropriate hardware/software combination.
In your case, that's most likely Win2k or WinMe, with Microsoft Word 2000,
Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, and Microsoft Powerpoint, none of
which has a true Linux equivalent -- though Lyx, Netscape (when it's
not crashing), gimp, and xfig come fairly close. I certainly hope
that you are keeping up with the Mighty Microsoft Marketing Machine's
latest and greatest, as well as Linux's; otherwise, you may just
confuse yourself and think that Linux's newest is better than
Microsoft's previous -- a situation that Microsoft will *not* like.
But who am I to say? :-)
>
>claire
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:43:22 GMT
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sf311$3vc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> CNDG5.5236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > > And I add : "- MS apps magically _still_ work."
> > Yes because of the missing step - the obvious one - MS makes sure that
> > their apps don't use the API. As I said I have no idea if it is true...
> but
> What do you do of the: Weevil: "As it also turns out, there are many, many
> undocumented functions in almost all of their APIs. Do their products use
> these undocumented functions? Yes, they do. " part ?
Sorry - I'll make it clearer - makes sure that their apps do not use the
API anymore - before they remove the API.
> > it would make logical sense if MS really did use/remove/change the
> > undocumented APIs.
> But they are supposed to use them to churn out better apps than the
> competitors, aren't they ?
That would be one assumption... another would be that they exist for
one purpose and get co-opted by MS developers who happen to know
that they exist. Either way MS has the source for theri apps and they
can find out when the OS group plans on removing a certain function.
> > > Where did I miss a step ?
> > Right in between them.
> I'll have to disagree, re-read what i wrote.
What you work doesn't work in a logical sense - of course before MS
removes an API they wuld have to make sure that their software doesn't
make use of it.
> > > > Do I beleive that an MS app may have used an undocumented
> > > > API call at one point and then removed that call later? Yes.
> > > By definition, if it's undocumented, it's not an API call, sinced the
> API
> > is
> > > the visible interface to the OS. :)
> > If an MS application makes use of it then it is by definition an API
call.
> Well, I'll have to disagree, AFAIK, the API is the documentad part of a
set
> of OS functions to be used by application developers. If it's not
> documented, it's not part of the API. Can a developer infirm or confirm ?
API - Application Program/Programmer Interface. If an application calls
an external function then by strict definition that external function is an
API call.
> > > That's why it's undocumented: it shouldn't be used. If you rely on it
> and
> > > it's removed, and your app breaks, it's your fault.
> > I don't think anypne disagrees on this point. The only thing is that
> > if itdoes get used and one group (MS) knows it is going away before
> Shouldn't be used. 5 year old MS apps run even on Win2K.
Does every MS app that makes use of undocumented APIs run?
If they do not run is it because of removal/change to the
undocumented API? You would have to look at all their softwarem
find all the undocumented API calls, and then look at the various
versions of WIndows to see if those APIs exist or do not exist
or if they have changed their functionality in a way that would
break the MS apps that call them.
You could imagine a silly example:
SetXXXHiddenAPITo(WIN31);
xxx();
- call the "SetXXX" to make xxx behave as it did in Win3.1 otherwise
have it work totaly different. Of course it couldn't be that obvious.
It would be easy enough to find out all the undocumented API calls
that MS apps were making - before those apps shipped. Once they
were identified the OS could have such calls added for all of them.
The apps would be modified to call the "SetXXX" APIs. This would
allow MS to change the functionality of the APIs an not break
MS programs. You could do simmilar things to make it so that
if you removed an API you could cope without changing the source.
> > another group (any other developer) then one group (MS) has an
> > unfair advantage.
> Then don't use the functions, they are not documented for that very
reason:
> they are supposed to change or be done with at the OS vendor discretion,
so
> they are not to be used.
Actualy the solution is for MS to not have any undocumented APIs that
any app - even their own apps - can call. They are providing a platform.
There should be a clear separation of the platform and the apps... if
not the OS vendor will get a reputation of screwing the competition...
oh hey MS has that reputation already... guess part of the reson why.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:58:17 GMT
In article <8s88og$6mr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Hung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If Win ME satisfies your needs, stick with it. Only you yourself can
>convince yourself whether you nee Linux. We are not Linux salesman here. Heh
>heh.
Advocacy: The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a
cause, an idea, or a policy; active support.
Why would a linux user who doesn't want to advocate the product hang around an
advocacy newsgroup?
Just wondering.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "AAA Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "AAA Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:04:43 -0500
> That's not what the WINE team is after. They want your existing windows
> programs to run as is. Immeasurably more difficult than source level
> compatibility (which is all you had your students doing). Even more so
> since the windows API is neither thoroughly nor accurately documented. I
> can't believe anyone is even attempting it.
It would be crazy if it were not for Windows app developers being involved
in the process, that is, developers who have existing applications they want
to run on Linux. WINE has been largely driven by Corel, so that Corel's apps
would not have to be completely (re)written for Linux. The large part of the
WINE challenge is the order in which messages are dispatched by Windows.
This is probably the murkiest area, since it is not very well documented. At
any rate, basically, when something doesn't work, the app engineers attempts
to analyse the difference between the message dispatching under Windows and
the same under WINE, and then attempts to either make WINE conform, and/or
change the app so it doesn't depend on the specific message order, if
possible. In this way, WINE becomes either closer to Windows, or the app
becomes less OS specific without rewriting the whole shabang. What's the
reasonable alternative for large apps? Even though it may never achieve
perfect compatibility, at very least WINE is a semi-compatible library that
lessens the workload of porting a Windows app to Linux. Of course, new apps
could be written in a platform independent environment in the first place.
But there are a lot of Windows large apps out there. And using WINE for
these makes sense.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:06:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> When I said use your brain, I meant use it, not repeat the same stuff
>in
>> >> detail. There is probably something very badly wrong with your
>> >> installation. C corrupted filesystem or a bad harddisk or something.
>> >> There are kernel options to allow Linux to see more memory.
>> >> Try mem=256M or something like it.
>> >
>> >That's the point, my objective isn't to hack the kernel, it is to insert
>a
>> >disk, hover over the return key for a few minutes and have the thing work
>in
>>
>> You don't need to hack the kernel, there's a point in the Mandrake 7.1
>install
>> where you get to enter how much memory you have. All you do is amend the
>> 64MB value in the text box and change it to 256MB. Not rocket science.
>
>I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when the
>install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
>mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
>amount available.
Yes it will, it gets the maximum amount available by querying the BIOS (where
it gets the 64MB figure). Not sure where you're getting the 66MB figure
from, 64MB is the maximum that most will report.
You should just be able to add append "mem=256" to the relevant section of
your lilo.conf and rerun lilo and it will work. That'll tell Linux exactly how
much memory it can use, overriding what the BIOS told it.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
