Linux-Advocacy Digest #790, Volume #29 Sat, 21 Oct 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("JS/PL")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (.)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Tired O'Shills)
Re: Why I do use Windows (Perry Pip)
Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing (Perry Pip)
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (.)
Re: Clearing things ("Weevil")
Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Redhat and TurboLinux announce support for the entire new IBM eServer line
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Perry Pip)
Re: Redhat and TurboLinux announce support for the entire new IBM eServer line
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ("Les Mikesell")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:07:13 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:13:14 GMT, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >2:1 wrote:
>
> >> So to top it all, unless you're adding a driver that can't be compiled
> >> as a kernel module, you have to reboot. And that'r rare.
> >
> >How about one that uses a different X server?
>
> You don't need to reboot to change X servers and never have, even
> before modular drivers came along. The X server is an application
> running in userland.
If you follow the thread upstream you'll find that I didn't state that you
had to re-boot. Just log off and back on, I then went on to say you don't
have to do that in Windows 2000 at all.
Here's the proof:
http://proof.dynip.com/res_proof.gif
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 21 Oct 2000 20:10:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <8snp6v$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:00:59 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> I never had any problems with my Voodoo3, or Voodoo2, or Intel
>> > 740,
>> >> >> or S3Virge, or Matrox G400.
>> >>
>> >> > Is the Matrox G400 FINALLY fully supported under Linux, or is it
>> > still
>> >> > single head only support?
>> >>
>> >> Its not "linux" that supports video cards, brainiac. Its the X-
>> > server.
>> >> You're probably referring to XFree86, and yes it does.
>> >>
>> >> Though AccelleratedX has for a bit longer.
>> >>
>> >> Funny, you seem to have claimed repeatedly that you have lots of
>> > experience
>> >> running linux. Even someone with very limited experience would have
>> >> known that linux doesnt support ANY sort of video hardware directly,
>> > and
>> >> that all of that happens inside the X-server.
>> >>
>> >> I suspect that youve been lying quite alot, claire.
>>
>> > To people that care about video card compatibility X is Linux.
>>
>> They are quite simply incorrect. You can redefine terms all you like, and
>> it will never, ever make you correct.
>>
>> > What
>> > comes in the box at the store or the ISO image they download is all
>> > linux to most folks.
>>
>> "claire" put herself apart from "most folks" by listing a fairly impressive
>> (though a lie) list of linuces shed had experience with.
>>
>> > You'd probably be first in line to say that
>> > Notepad.exe is Windows.
>>
>> No, because I know that it isnt.
>>
>> > What I like is how when people
>> > criticize "Linux" in this regard, the Penguinista's turn coat and say
>> > things like "but that's not Linux".
>>
>> Correclty of course.
>>
>> > Without X and all the things that
>> > technically aren't linux you'd have a machine that cannot boot since
>> > LILO isn't techically Linux either :-)
>>
>> You can boot linux without LILO, you diminutive-brained maroon.
>>
>> XFree86 is an X-Server that works on a ton of unix and unix-like operating
>> systems. It is developed independantly of linux and what linux is doing.
>> If theres a problem with a video driver, it has everything to so with the
>> good people over there at XFree, and nothing to do with anyone working on
>> the linux kernel or filesystem. This is the correct viewpoint, yours is
>> absolutely wrong.
> Like I said. Not ready for the desktop
Im not one of the people who claims it is. It is certianly not ready
for people who are stupid and/or unwilling to think.
> or anyone else.
Actually, apparantly it is. See google, dejanews, Sony and IBM for details.
> Users do NOT make
> these kind of distinctions.
The ones who arent complete morons do.
> Shall I remind you of "Jurassic Park"?
Neat. Support your fictional point with a fictional plot.
> You know
> when the little girl goes up to the GUI on the computer screen and says "I know
> what this is -- It's UNIX!" or some such piffle. You know how many dialog
> editors that kinda thing has to go through? Michael Crighton himself, a fairly
> technical guy, wrote those words.
He wrote those words many, many years ago when he A. wasnt so technical and B.
didnt know a goddamn thing about computers.
> Consider that all commercial UNIces run X.
Yes they do.
> I say you can pick whatever the fuck you want and call it linux but it doesn't
> matter since everyone else calls the whole shebang by that name.
And theyre still morons, and quite incorrect.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 21 Oct 2000 20:12:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > It figures.
>>
>> > They always seem to know each other :(
>>
>> Thats some argument youve got there. Care to fib a little more
>> about your linux experience?
> So you're gay too? :-0
Nope. Wouldnt mind if I was though.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Tired O'Shills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:18:47 -0700
Replies like this are why you were dropped from my shill-watch list. You
self-destruct under pressure. The smarter shills know how to control
themselves, know how to maintain the illusion of rational impartiality, and
know when to switch tactics. You, however, are just a punk, unable to control
your emotions and prone to outbursts. As long as your balls are bigger than
your brain you are not dangerous. And, I find you occasionally entertaining.
Your explanation of 2 dimensional Fourier transforms was especially precious.
It had me giggling for days.
Anyway, I provided two solid examples from well established journalists to
prove that the quote in question was, in fact, used within Microsoft. You
answered with your typical vacuous bluster and bullshit. If you had any
integrity you would be sporting a new signature.
But I've had enough of this nonsense. Unless you comment on the topic, I won't
bother responding anymore. And, in that case, let my response to you go without
saying:
"Fuck you, FUD-boy, you pretentious, lying, hypocritical little sack of shit".
P.S.:
For those interested, the Lunga article is found at:
http://www.cmpnet.com/voices/archive/090298langa.html
Excerpts of the relevant "Hard Drive" material (albeit imprecisely quoted, at
least compared to my edition) are at: http://www.armonline.com/bill_gates.html
Simon Cooke wrote:
> "Tired O'Shills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's funny to see you harping about my identity after all your prior crap
> about
> > the right to anonymity. Gee, you're both a liar AND a hypocrite. What a
> > surprise. Not.
>
> You've got a right to your anonymity. And I've got a right to call you a
> coward for it.
>
> So go blow yourself.
>
> Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why I do use Windows
Date: 21 Oct 2000 20:12:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:35:27 GMT,
Idoia Sainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I included his post to be sure he could understand how badly wrapped
>> his lines were. That's pertinent.
>
> I CR/LF my posts under Outlook to this group to be sure tin, slrn and
>the so can read them.
You mucked up the post for everybody, even Outlook users. Here is how
your lines were wrapped in raw text format:
http://www.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=682807957&fmt=text
Now this shows you know nothing about your software, and are thus
unqualified to make comparisons.
>> Balanced?? His post was full of subjective opinion and misinformation,
>> Off the top of my head:
>
>> 1) Needing an emulator to play games under Linux - misinformation.
>
> I am weel informed, and know which games are and which are not
>available under GNU/Linux, getting my sentences out of context won't
>answer my issues.
Out of context?? No. You implied a emulator was needed to play games
under Linux. You did not specify which games. You also stated there
were no gaming libraries for Linux. This is also incorrect.
>> 2) IE better than Netscape, Outlook a better newsreader, etc. -
>> subjective opinion.
>
> Opinions are subjetive by definitions unless you prove it with maths,
>arent't they ?
Water is wet. The sky is blue. That's not math.
>By better I usually try to mean more featured (or at least
>more wide-demanded featured) and easier to use to a certain level.
More full feature != better, especially when the "feature" mucks
things up, IMHO.
>> I've seen and heard all this before and I'm not going to waste my time
>> addressing it.
>
> That's your prerrogative, no one pretended neither to offend you nor
>to make you waste your valuable time.
And I'm not telling you what software to use. I'm just pointing out
it's not the panecea you claim it is, and that your comparisons are
biased.
>> NONE of the points?? I demonstrated that his newsreader, Outlook, is
>> not telling him what it is really posting. This is typical of so many
>> Windows apps: they do things to your data, often botching it up,
>> without even telling you.
>
> Well, even when at some cases it may be annoying, computers were
>first designed to help doing calcs, evolving then into tools to help
>people, even doing (if they are well designed and programmed) what
>people does not have to know how to do or even know has to be
>done, that's what I understand computers for ... do you care if your
>car integrated-computer do things that you have not explicitly told
>to it do to ?
If it runs my engine ineffiently, or worse yet floors the throttle
into a tree, yes, I care.
> No, it is just a pice of hardware to aid your driving.
*aid* my driving, not *do* my driving!!!. The controls should respond
properly to my inputs. No??
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing
Date: 21 Oct 2000 20:13:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:56:15 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
>> Instead of blowing hot air why don't you provide some real data.
>> According to the SANS 1999 survey which you can get from
>> http://www.sans.org/sal99.htm
>>
>> Average sysadmin: $54,660.
>> 54% w/ college degrees. 20% w/ some college.
>> Those with degrees averaging $5000 more than those without.
>>
>> And from EETimes: http://www.eetimes.com/salarysurvey/1999/money.html
>>
>> Average EE: $75,500
>>
>> That's a 20K difference.
>>
>> Moreover, you sysadmin types need to get your head out of the clouds
>> and realize your job is nothing but a secondary role. Whether it is
>
>Wrong.
>
>Good Systems administration is a "force multiplier" akin to upgrading
>soldiers from spears and lances to submachineguns and assualt rifles.
It's the needs of the soldiers that drives the need for submachineguns
and assualt rifles. Thus the soldiers needs come first.
>That is, by improving their tools, the end-users are FAR more productive
>than they would be otherwise.
But that still doesn't make the sysadmins work take precedence to the
end-users' work. That would be the tail wagging the dog.
>
>In a way, by making that engineer 5x-20x as productive, the sysadmin is
>essentially the difference between having 1 man produce 1 circa-1970
>engineer's worth of productivity, and having one engineer today be more
>productive than an entire department was in 1970.
Wow you really do have your head in the clouds. Since when do
"sysadmins" make engineers 5x-20x more productive than they were in
1970. First of all, "sysadmins" don't design or develop computer
systems, Engineers do. Secondly, you have no data to show that
engineers are 5x-20x as they were in 1970. Overall U.S. worker
productivity has only increased about 60% since 1970. Engineer
productivity may have increased 2x-3x, not 5x-20x. Thirdly, where I
work, engineers for years sysadmin'ed all of their own systems, and we
still do in many of our labs.
And regardless, sysadmin is still a secondary role. Without
sysadmin's, people could get some work done, as they did for thousands
of years. Without people to support, sysadmins would be unemployed.
>I used to do direct 'on the floor' support (not remote/telephone support)
>for GM, and saw how quickly productivity slowed down when there were
>problems which require admins to solve.
Sure, without sysadmins, productivity would drop dramatically. But
without the people who actually build the cars, productivity would be
*zero* and the sysadmins would be *unemployed*:)
>
>> desktop PC's or supercomputers your job is merely to keep the machines
>> running securely. It's the people who actually use the machines to
>
>But that *IS* an essential task.
So is cleaning the toilet. But it's not a primary task. Your point??
>If that engineers' computer is not working properly, 80% - 95% of his
>productivity is out the window.
And without clean toilets, we all get hepatitis. Your point??
And why is a Purdue engineering graduate like yourself just a
sysadmin?? I mean Purdue...wow!! Why aren't you a rocket scientist
designing new propulsion methods, or or a plasma expert developing
fusion power, or debugging the genetic code, or something??
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: 21 Oct 2000 20:15:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why must everything be repeated 2 or 3 times before you fully
> understand it?
> I noticed that Drestin has to constantly repeat the same things over
> and over to you?
> I posted my hardware list yesterday for Mark. Here it is again because
> you didn't read properly. Or maybe your Linux News system is not
> giving you all of the posts?
> ***********************************************************
> Abit BH6 with 256 meg (Linux doesn't recognize it all)
> Pentium II 450 mhz
> Maxtor EIDE DMA 100 drives.
> IBM SCSI-3 drives
> Adaptec 2940UW
> HP 9310i CD
> Plextor CDROM
> USR V.Everything Courier Modem
> Canon FB 630P scanner
> Lexmark Z42 Printer (real nice!! at 2400 dpi)
> MidiMan Delta 1010 (http://www.midiman.net/m-audio.htm )
> Soundblaster Live
> Matrox G-200 w 8meg
> Pretty typical system with the exception of the Midiman card.
> *********************************************************************
> See if you can figure out which one is the pro digital audio card.
Obvious. Still, something of an amateurish system.
Especially since youre depending on 98SE to get it to work.
> The SbLive is so I can hear what a mix will sound like on the typical
> crap soundcard that consumers like you are using.
Uh huh.
> It also serves as a game card when I play Duke Nukem'.
I see youre very much up with the times.
> A boombox in my studio serves a similar purpose.
As your computer? I'm not surprised.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Clearing things
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:15:44 -0500
Idoia Sainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FR0I5.354$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But I suppose if I were stuck with a single-tasking, single-user
> > operating system, I wouldn't care about covering up all the other
> > windows where I'm actually accomplishing work.
>
> NT/2000 have threads included at kernel level ... not like
> the pthread() one. Since Windows 95, all Win32 applications
> behave preemptively.
While 16-bit apps and DOS apps bring this supposedly pre-emptive
multi-tasking operating system to a Full. Dead. Stop.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:22:52 GMT
On 21 Oct 2000 18:59:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>Things can be hard at times with Linux. I guess it's a test of faith at times.
>However, the alternatives aren't all that friendly when you try anything apart
>from being a simple user.
Some things are easy and some things are difficult.
>I remember first taking up Linux. I had massive difficulties at first, but
>persisted. I'm glad I did, as the price of commercial apps is prohibitive.
This is true, but there are a lot of shareware and freeware programs
that are inexpensive.
>Need a loan amortiser? Buy a spreadsheet and hope it has an example file to
>fuck with. Or, fire up "vi" or "pico" and bang out some C code. It took 3
>hours to code a crude amortiser but I made one for my use. (OK, so I suck at
>programming) You could end up spending that much time fucking with a
>spreadsheet to make an amortiser file.
Took me all of 30 seconds to go Winfiles.com and download one.
In fact there are dozens there.
Freshmeat has one as well at:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/planfinancialassistant/?highlight=loan
but I know what you are saying.
>A good spreadsheet can cost way more than 3 hours of working overtime at work
>to assemble the money needed to buy it. If I worked overtime, the after-tax
>wages would be $15/hour, so the 3 hours I spent banging out the crude code is
>equivalent to $45. You can't get a spreadsheet for that price, and you have to
>waste the time for its install AND mucking with the amortize.dat file.
I prefer the 30 second download it approach.
The fact that I can't "bang out code" might have something to do with
it though :)
>Since coding in C is easy for doing math, the pre-existing gcc compiler is
>just perfect for my math needs. And a good compiler for Windows will set you
>back pretty good. The gcc compiler represents a LOT of overtime never worked
>to have! The neat thing is that doing math with C as the language is that it's
>far easier to do math in C than working with strings. To work with strings, I
>use a mix of C, shell scripts, perl, etc. Again, I'm a lousy programmer, but
>since it's for my use only, it doesn't matter.
I've always agreed that Linux is a great platform for development
because the tools are all there and the same tools would cost a
fortune under Windows.
>For the most part, making a Linux-only LAN is a snap. I made a LAN once with 2
>computers long before the notion of the home LAN ever cropped up. NFS is real
>easy to do, once you find out how. FTP and Telnet come practically out of the
>box. Email is interesting, and Linux is awesome for coding email bots to
>upload to a shell account. One thing I never figured out was Linux and PPP for
>hooking to the real net. Oh,well. Just use Minicom.
Your last statement is a biggie though. Most people would like to
easily connect to the net and with cable modems / DSL easily set up
ICS to share a connection.
>Using Linux as a server in a normal LAN is challenging, but techies do it
>every day, slipping a Linux server under the nose of the boss. Same with
>setting up firewalls, etc.
True, but again I was talking home desktop. I even said Linux does
well as a server.
>Once you get into LANs, the amount of overtime worked to assemble the money
>for server software is incredible. Price NT Server lately? At $3,000 and what
>I would make working overtime at work, an NT Server album is equal to 200
>hours or 25 Saturdays wasted. Setting up Samba would take way less time!
>Worse, that NT Server machine needs a bunch of costly software to make it
>useful.
I agree with the cost, but I can't comment on the time factor as I
have never done it.
>With the cost of commercial software as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if a
>Linux album is worth its weight in _plutonium_. To buy the Windows equivalent
>of a Linux album, you'd need a VISA Plutonium credit card. And you had better
>be awful productive to pay down that debt.
If you are a programmer or setting up some kind of server, yes I would
agree with you.
For a home desktop, no way.
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redhat and TurboLinux announce support for the entire new IBM eServer
line
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:26:54 GMT
So explain it to me.
I can't wait to hear this one :)
RAS= Reliability, Availability,Serviceability (IBMSpeak if you will)
So explain it to me.....
claire
On 21 Oct 2000 19:51:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> How are they going to handle RAS under Linux?
>
>> Especially on the RS/6k and SP boxes?
>
>> Concurrent maintenance depends on chrp.
>
>> How are they going to interface Linux with PSSP code?
>
>
>> claire
>
>> And for yttrx (aka .) Do you have any idea what the above means?
>
>Yes actually I do, but apparantly you dont. Because if you did, you
>would understand that the first two points are absolutely moot,
>and the last one has been done.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.security.misc
Subject: Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: 21 Oct 2000 20:25:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:46:50 -0700,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
>> >
>
>> >See #2. Open source means the source code is available for all hackers to
>> >peruse. Scary.
Plonk!! You know *nothing* about security.
You don't need source code to find security holes. You just use a
sophisticated scanning tool and probe a test machine for buffer
overflows.
Without source code, you can't fix holes, and the vendor can deny the
bug even exists.
What you are preaching is known as "security thru obscurity", which
nearly every security expert on the planet has regarded as
fallacy. From the preface of Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" -
http://www.counterpane.com/ac2preface.html
"If I take a letter, lock it in a safe, hide the safe somewhere in New
York, and then tell you to read the letter, that's not
security. That's obscurity. On the other hand, if I take a letter and
lock it in a safe, and then give you the safe along with the design
specifications of the safe and a hundred identical safes with their
combinations so that you and the world's best safecrackers can study
the locking mechanism--and you still can't open the safe and read the
letter, that's security."
You need to learn that.
>> Open source means that people can find the flaws, and either fix them or
>> tell people about them so that others fix the flaws. The majority of
>> "security announcements" for open source products are fixes for potential
>> holes that are found and patched long before anyone has found a way to
>> exploit them.
>
>Wrong. In fact CERT is changing it's announcement policy because people
>aren't fixing the problems.
>The script kiddies still love Linux and Unix.
No, you're wrong. CERT is not a statistic. They merely provide
information. It's up to admins to use that information. With
Linux/Unix, more information is availabe because it's open, which
ultimately results in more secure software.
Here is a statistic:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
NT gets cracked more than anything. And with most of those NT machines
NOBODY KNOWS HOW THEY WERE CRACKED!!!. THAT'S REALLY SCARY!!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redhat and TurboLinux announce support for the entire new IBM eServer
line
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:28:30 GMT
See the previous message.
You really DO have to learn how to read and follow a thread better.
Maybe it's that shitty Newsreader you are using.
Does tin even support threading?
claire
On 21 Oct 2000 19:54:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Fair enough.
>
>> I was just asking because I know that RAS is key to these platforms
>> and while Linux does run on these machines, how can hot swapping and
>> concurrent maintenece be done on them using Linux?
>
>You are an idiot, claire. RAS is moot. Your utterly lack of understanding
>of this belies your total inexperience with linux.
>
>> RS/6k running AIX interface with PSSP to allow the tech or customer to
>> run diagnostics, repair and replace hardware without upsetting the
>> system. It even says so in the ad for that super-server they released
>> last week.
>
>You understand that the PSSP interface which has been completed for
>IBMs distribution of the linux distribution in question actually has
>nothing to do with linux as an operating system. And its been done.
>
>> IBM is advertising extremely low downtimes, and there is no doubt they
>> can do it, with AIX.
>
>They do it better with MVS, but thats beside the point...since you dont
>know what that is.
>
>> Presently, I don't know how they can do it with Linux (not that Linux
>> isn't just as stable), but due to above.
>
>Thats not surprising, since you have no idea how linux works.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:35:46 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PI9I5.10428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > It has everything to do with the problem you brought up. If the bios
> > reports the memory size in the old standard way, Linux will see
> > the correct values up to 64M.
>
> But Windows *.* can detect the full amount on all these systems without
> any limitations.
And you think second-guessing the bios is a good idea? If your
car's gauges report it is low on oil, do you think it is a good idea
to assume the hardware is wrong and go on?
> > If it uses the new standard way Linux (newer than around 2.0.36 or
> > so) will see larger values correctly. If the bios doesn't work,
> > perhaps windows is using some proprietary mechanism obtained under
> > an NDA.
>
> Or, Linux developers are novice, which is more likely the case
> as demonstrated in other areas of the product.
>
> -Chad
I've had several combinations of motherboards/cards where Windows
auto-detection would lock the system up but Linux and DOS would
work fine. The windows technique is not necessarily better because
it happens to work on the box you tried.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:37:08 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8spa52$snk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <55CH5.13009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a
> > simple
> > > fact, check it.
> >
> > Maybe on your planet, Chad. But here on earth, Linux has always
> > detected my RAM just right. And my partitions have also been detected
> > right, not like Windows 95, which once detected my Linux partition as
> > being an "audio CD"...
>
> It has never detected my RAM just right. 66mb is all it shows. Why?
> I take that back - I don't care why.
Linux doesn't 'detect' RAM, it uses the value supplied by the motherboard
bios.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:37:30 GMT
dork
claire
P.S. If you want to discuss something intelligent tell me about RAS
and PSSP.
I notice you are avoiding it already.
On 21 Oct 2000 20:05:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:38:03 GMT
dork.
claire
On 21 Oct 2000 20:08:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
