Linux-Advocacy Digest #862, Volume #29 Wed, 25 Oct 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (Gary Hallock)
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Astroturfing (Jason Bowen)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Michael Marion)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Steve Mading)
Re: Got it working. (Was Thinkpad+Linux) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
(Goldhammer)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (JoeX1029)
Re: Astroturfing (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:00:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote
> > > on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:34:51 GMT
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >Read his statement.
> > > >
> > > >He said applications run faster, and offered 0 proof.
> > >
> > > It would be interesting to see if Win2k can run both Linux
> > > and FreeBSD binaries faster than Linux and FreeBSD,
> > > respectively... :-)
It's now possible. Cygwin makes it possible to compile the bytemarks
under Windows NT or Windows 2000. It's still GNU libraries and
binaries, but it could certainly be useful for measuring a standard
set of component metrics.
> > > [rest snipped]
> > >
> > > --
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> >
> > Ha ha, shit!
> > Give Bill Gates another 10 years and Windows will probably
> > be another NIX if he had it his way!
Actually, Bill realized he made a mistake shortly after he sold
Xenix (and all rights to the UNIX market) to SCO. He figured he
could buy the company with pocket change (less than $100 million
would give him controlling interest?). And if anyone tried a
hostile take-over, Microsoft would be "off the hook". Instead,
a number of investors, most not terribly fond of Bill Gates or
Microsoft, purchased nearly all of the outstanding shares. At least
enough to keep Gates from getting control of the company, and widely
disbursed enough that it couldn't be classified as a take-over.
Unfortunately, Bill Gates had not seen X11R3 until after he had sold
his right to UNIX.
> > Charlie
>
> Windows is slowly and painfully becoming UNIX.
Yes and no. Microsoft has always resisted even the most basic
of standards, preferring proprietary substitutes which it protects
with a razor-wire network of NDAs. While the bulk of the Internet
runs PPP w/CHAP, TCP/IP, DNS, and fixed addressing (for security
reasons) using RARP or static IP,
Microsoft uses PPP with MS-CHAP (a perverse extension protected
by NDA until cracked by Linux users frantic to use AOL POPs).
Microsoft uses NETBIOS/IP for many of it's functions which
advertises servers and services in the most unsecure way possible.
Microsoft uses WINS which adds even more security holes, especially
when trusted domain relationships are astablished inappropriately.
And Microsoft uses DHCP which thwarts most attempts
to identify hackers (who simply release the address by changing
MAC addresses manually).
While the rest of the industry uses CORBA, Microsoft brought us
DCOM and ActiveX, sponsors of the Melissa, Explore-zip, Iloveyou,
and Internet Exploder viruses.
Even simple ascii text is treated differently. Attempting to view
UNIX text files on Notepad (the default handler for text files) result
in a nearly unreadable display which will be further mangled and
unreadable to UNIX if word wrap is enabled and the files is
subsequently saved. Similar uglification occurs with other attempts
to convert Microsoft content into industry standard content.
The GNU manifesto explains why Microsoft does this. Quite simply,
when you save a document in Microsoft's proprietary formats, Microsoft
now owns an interest in that document. To read that document with
unlicensed software creates a legal and financial oblication even
when the technology is possible.
> Look at it, it now has a remote GUI,
Which again is completely unique and incompatible with everything
else. SMS/PCAnywhere... are poor substitutes for X11 and VNC which
allow multiple users to run graphical programs remotely at the same
time. With Microsoft's platform, one user at a time can use a very
slow interface to the full windows screen.
> a POSIX subsystem,
Actually, only POSIX level one. Which is just short of useless.
There are three levels of POSIX compatibility and Windows couldn't
even get the forks and pipelines managed properly. Again, they have
proprietary alternatives, which are completely incompatible with all
other POSIX level 2 systems.
> symbolic links, etc.
But how these links (shortcuts) are interpreted is up for grabs. While
symbolic links require special interrogation to distinguish them from
regular files, Microsoft's shortcuts require special handling to be
treated as shortcuts. Command.com will not follow shortcuts, nor will
many other applications, especially in terms of paths.
> Besides, wasn't NT3
> a better UNIX than UNIX?
Actually, Windows 2000 is a better UNIX than SunOS 4.0.
Of course, when comparing the Win2K machine with 512 meg of RAM,
40 gig hard drive, and 1 gigaflop/BIPs processor to the SunOS 4.0
with 8 meg of RAM, 512 meg hard drive, and 10 Mips processor, it
would be silly to thing that little underpowered toy would be a
useful as a machine nearly 100 times bigger and 100 times faster.
> Meanwhilst I'll just stick to using UNIX or UNIX workalikes.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward
Rosten
> binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
> first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
> commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:13:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> IBM Thinkpad 765L with 3 gig blank un partitioned hard disk.
> Sigma Data 24x CDROM (says IBM certified on label) in Ultrabay.
> USR PCMCIA 56K modem.
> Linksys Cardbus PCMCIA Ethernet card.
> 64 Meg memory.
>
> And one friend who asked me to install Linux, no particular
> distribution in mind. Just something "nice" so he can try Linux.
>
> I try Mandrake 7.x as my first choice and slap the CD in only to
> discover this particular machine will not boot from the CD no matter
> what I do in the BIOS. Ok so I follow the somewhat screwed up
> directions and make a boot diskette. Still the CDROM doesn't get
> recognized despite trying every *.img file on the CD. Ok so now I
> figure maybe Mandrake is screwy so I try RedHat 6.2 and get similar
> results. At this point I start to think maybe the CDROM drive is
> defective so I make a startup diskette on one of my Windows 98se
> machines, which has obviously completely different hardware, and try
> it. Bingo it recognizes the CDROM and also the fact that the hardisk
> is not partitioned. Going one step farther, I partition the drive and
> put the Windows 98 SE CDROM in and start an install. Works like a
> champ. This is with a startup diskette from a completely different
> system with completely different hardware, and yet it seems to install
> some generic Oak Cdrom driver to make it work until Windows can
> install the proper driver.
> Not to be daunted, I wipe the drive and try SuSE 6.4 via the boot
> diskette method and FINALLY the CD is recognized and I am able to
> install Linux. All hardware except sound is working fine.
> I took the "Install almost Everything" option and it took about 2.5
> hours to complete with 1.7 gig of drive space used. Granted this is
> not the fastest of machines (although the CD is 24x) at P166mhz.
>
> Now comes the fun part. Getting this beast to talk to the other
> machines on the network. I've tried it on my network and I can ping
> the ICS machine (running Win 2k) but when I bring up Netscape on the
> Linux machine it won't connect. What magic incantation do I need to
> know in order to do this. On the other Win machines it just worked
> from the start when I checked the "Share the Connection" tab.
>
> Question #2 How could I have installed to the Laptop via FTP from the
> CDROM mounted on the network CDROM? With a bare harddrive how would I
> go about doing this. Is there some cookbook (I am network challenged)
> procedure somewhere?
>
> I'd like to get this thing back to him tonight so he can play with
> Linux a bit.
>
> Claire
Use the WEBADM Claire.
http://localhost:10000
Enter root account and password.
It's MO graphical and easier to use than anything on the world.
You can set up the samba and apache from it
and remote mount windows shares also.
Set up your modem and PPP0.
Just about anything you want to do and avoid
the VI editor.
My wife likes it.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:14:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:56:51 -0400, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I installed Redhat 6.1 on just such a machine. Your right, it can't
> >boot from CD. That's just the way the hardware is. After I discovered
> >that, I followed the directions for installing from the hard drive.
> >Piece of cake.
>
> How did you partition it so that you could have the files you are
> installing and also the target on the same drive?
>
When I got it, it had Windows 95 installed. I brought up Partition Magic,
carved up some space for Linux, leaving enough space on the Windows partition
to copy the install CD, and then copied the CD to Windows. Then I booted
from floppy and pointed to the Windows directory containing the RPM files.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:16:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> IBM Thinkpad 765L with 3 gig blank un partitioned hard disk.
> Sigma Data 24x CDROM (says IBM certified on label) in Ultrabay.
> USR PCMCIA 56K modem.
> Linksys Cardbus PCMCIA Ethernet card.
> 64 Meg memory.
>
> And one friend who asked me to install Linux, no particular
> distribution in mind. Just something "nice" so he can try Linux.
>
> I try Mandrake 7.x as my first choice and slap the CD in only to
> discover this particular machine will not boot from the CD no matter
> what I do in the BIOS. Ok so I follow the somewhat screwed up
> directions and make a boot diskette. Still the CDROM doesn't get
> recognized despite trying every *.img file on the CD. Ok so now I
> figure maybe Mandrake is screwy so I try RedHat 6.2 and get similar
> results. At this point I start to think maybe the CDROM drive is
> defective so I make a startup diskette on one of my Windows 98se
> machines, which has obviously completely different hardware, and try
> it. Bingo it recognizes the CDROM and also the fact that the hardisk
> is not partitioned. Going one step farther, I partition the drive and
> put the Windows 98 SE CDROM in and start an install. Works like a
> champ. This is with a startup diskette from a completely different
> system with completely different hardware, and yet it seems to install
> some generic Oak Cdrom driver to make it work until Windows can
> install the proper driver.
> Not to be daunted, I wipe the drive and try SuSE 6.4 via the boot
> diskette method and FINALLY the CD is recognized and I am able to
> install Linux. All hardware except sound is working fine.
> I took the "Install almost Everything" option and it took about 2.5
> hours to complete with 1.7 gig of drive space used. Granted this is
> not the fastest of machines (although the CD is 24x) at P166mhz.
>
> Now comes the fun part. Getting this beast to talk to the other
> machines on the network. I've tried it on my network and I can ping
> the ICS machine (running Win 2k) but when I bring up Netscape on the
> Linux machine it won't connect. What magic incantation do I need to
> know in order to do this. On the other Win machines it just worked
> from the start when I checked the "Share the Connection" tab.
>
> Question #2 How could I have installed to the Laptop via FTP from the
> CDROM mounted on the network CDROM? With a bare harddrive how would I
> go about doing this. Is there some cookbook (I am network challenged)
> procedure somewhere?
>
> I'd like to get this thing back to him tonight so he can play with
> Linux a bit.
>
> Claire
Redhat and Mandrake offer a single disk FTP install.
You make this one disk and it will download via FTP
over an already established eithernet internet connection.
Option #2 is to use Debian and do it via the modem.
Debian will require you to make 17 disks and establish
your base system on the hard drive first. From there
you can either or modem out.
Debian allows the modem out whilst the other will
only either out.
Suse, Redhat, and Mandrake also offer NFS install,
but considering your circumstances I think you'll
probalby pass on that option.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:23:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:22:19 -0700, "Bob B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Now here is great representative of the Linux "community" - he doesn't
> >try to refute or explain anything, his only contribution is to say
> >"bullshit". And as if this wasn't already wasting enough bandwidth, he
> >includes a 37 line signature.
>
> Fortunately he's NOT representative of the Linux community and I know
> that.
>
> Screwballs are non-operating system dependent.
>
> Claire
Well fine!
I work hard. I try hard!
I post hard!
And you give him all the credit!
It's NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:26:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thank you for the instructions. Turns out I had set up everything
> correctly via YaST1 (I don't like yast2).
>
Yeah, me neither.
7.0 is supposed to have a new and improved YAST2.
Alice is their machine replicator now.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 26 Oct 2000 01:36:11 GMT
In article <39f772a0$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>>In article <39f55081$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:39f384d1$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:39f2e6f0$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> >> >What's wrong with your reading comprehension, Joseph, that you can't
>>>>> >notice
>>>>> >> >the words "Besides that" in my statements. That means, "Even if it
>>>>were
>>>>> >> >true".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> You're proceeding on the hope that everyone here is too stupid to know
>>>>> >that
>>>>> >> newspapers would not run this story without verifying it. This makes
>>>>you
>>>>> >> either an M$ paid troll or a complete jackass troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> >The story doesn't say that MS paid them. That's the point. Did you even
>>>>> >read it? The conclusion that MS paid for the letters was made by someone
>>>>> >else
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer the question: How much are you paid to be here?
>>>
>>>>Well, you caught me. I'm paid $10 billion dollars a day to be here. Are you
>>>>happy now? Go away idiot.
>>>
>>>You're the idiot if you think that all of us are stupid enough to think your
>>>constant cheerlead ing for M$ is done for some altruistic reason. -- You are
>>>either paid for it, or are suffering from some mental deficiency that compels
>>>you to have vicarious relationship with bill gates and support him for free.
>>>Which is it jackass?
>
>>I think he is acutally quite like you Ed. I can't fathom you being a
>>cheerleader for OS/2 for altruistic reasons so what is the benefit to you?
>
>
>Blah, blah, blah. -- Let him tell us clearly who pays him or that he is here
>cheerleading because he loves billy gates.
>
>And, if you are trying to suggest that I'm paid to be here, then you are
>bigger asshole then I thought.
>
Why? Why else would you cheerlead?
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:48:17 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> So I guess this mix of 8 or 9 systems I have (Compaq, generic laptops,
> misc Dell systems, and a Gateway 2000) not to mention several of my friends'
> (who actually assisted me originally in getting the mem= deal in the lilo.conf)
> are miracles or something?
Must be. I've installed on at least 5 different Compaq boxes here (older
deskpro 6266, newer AP400 as well as armada m300, m700 and 7400 laptops) and
all memory was detected just fine. In fact, I made a kickstart disk for our
PC support group to jump 14 m300s and they all worked perfectly.
> Either you're lying, or extremely lucky. I'm referring to Red Hat Linux
> 6.0 - 6.2
Not lying, and I've used RH6-6.2, as well as Mandrake 7.1 on them.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
"HTML [e-]mail... the 90's equivalent of letters on scented stationary." --Dan
Foygel 3 Jun 1998
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:10:36 GMT
In article <39f76a1d$0$32632$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8t52ve$v5p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > These memory drawing surfaces are not really used for things like
device
> > independant printing. Printing is generally done via PostScript and
for
> > non poscript devices the 'driver' is basically a usermode program
that
> > takes postscript input and generates binary output for the given
device.
>
> That's one of the main points here:
Is that what was being argued here? I thought it was about the breakup
of Xlib/X versus the windows terminal server model.
> drawing on screen with X and drawing on
> paper with PostScript are two completely separate things on Unix,
requiring
> separate code, separate libraries and probably more work for the
developer.
Yes that's true - having written software for NT since 3.51 (I
programmed it for serveral years before I ever touched Linux or any
other Unix like OS) I know this and like this feature.
This is hardly a requirement (probably not even very useful) for a
file/print server. As you said yourself with win2k server you need a
win2k client to actually use server side drivers. 95/98 and NT simply
push data to the file/print server after it has already come out the
driver on the local machine.
> One of the beauties of Windows it that you can easily do truly device
> independent rendering out of the box, no matter what kind of device
you are
> talking to. You don't even have to know in many cases. Admittedly,
some
> things just don't work well - such as bitblts on a plotter - but you
can
> always query *any* device for its capabilities in a standard, uniform
> fashion using one single API call, namely GetDeviceCaps(), to handle
special
> cases gracefully.
>
Yes this is nice in theory but it doesn't always work correctly.
I wrote this program for a steel industry customer -- its called xview.
It works correctly on NT with all different printer/driver combinations
we've tried. It works on 95/98 on most printer/driver combos but won't
work with a HP Laserjet 5 or 6 with any driver compatible with that
printer (i checked the device capabilites and I'm not doing anything I
shouldn't in the code).
I've written a lot of software for this customer - most of it used
TCP/IP communication. We were running it on nt3.51 when new machines
with 95 came in. Installed the software on new machines, it didn't
work. Turns out that there was (maybee still is) a bug in bind() where
if you bind a socket to a specific IP address (not just 0.0.0.0) it
doesn't work. This is an inexcusable bug - how can a company ship this?
Ok, add workaround to code and add do some playing with routing --
communication now works. Now we look at the screens and it generally
works except some text output doesn't work so I take another look at my
code. Ahah, 95 handles TextOut() with DT_NOCLIP flag incorrectly -- add
workaround. Go through this a few more times and it all works. My code
is now peppered with /* compensate for w95 bug */ comments.
I'm pretty pissed at this point, tell my customer to stay away from 95.
Windows may seem like one OS to the user, but to the developer it is a
terribly forked mess. NT4, NT5, 95, 95OSR2, 98, 98SE, ME -- they all
have their little quirks you have to program around.
OK, now we get NT4 coming in, install on this and everything seems to
work well (hooray). Leave machines on all night and computers are
frozen next morning. Wait for service pack 1 (ahah there it is
Qwhatever basically leak in TCP/IP stack). Install service pack 1 and
things now run OK (much longer than the 12 hours they did before). By
service pack 3 things are running well.
Heard about Linux and bought a CD (redhat 5.2) for $2 to try it out as I
has never touched any unix before. I installed it no problem. Used it
and took a little getting used to but by 1 week I didn't have any
problems. Used it a little more and started to really like it. True
multiuser, don't have to lot out to switch to administrator - just use
'su'. Started to realize that Unix is an elegant and well though out
OS. Just about every thing is a file so a single security model (file
security) is used for just about everything. Example, the serial ports
are files, need to restrict or grant access, just set the file security
(how do you do that on NT?) Don't want someone to be able to use the
floppy drive, no problem it is a file too. Realized that the way unix
mounts partitions is so much nicer than the C: D: E: thing MS uses.
Need a certain directory to be a ramdisk or zip drive, just mount the
device extactly where you want it. Unix is just so much better
designed.
Hey you know what? This Linux is just better than NT, why bother with
NT when you have too keep track of the licenses plus pay money for it.
I mean this Linux thing is free and better, why pay for NT?
Started to write code for Linux, everything worked like it said in the
man pages - didn't need to install the C compiler because it and all the
development tools you'll ever need come with the OS.
Tried FreeBSD because I was curious. I little bit different than Linux
from the administrators point of view but still pretty close. Take my
Linux software and run the actual Linux binaries on it. They all work
perfectly without expection. Compile and link to native FreeBSD binary
works first time. Again do some testing and still runs perfectly. You
know from the programers point of view different *nixs are much closer
than NT and 9X (at least Linux and FreeBSD).
I've ported over a good chunk of my code to Linux and am using it for al
my new installations. It works great (a few months in service for PCs
without a crash). Most of my stuff is deployed using server - thin
client (Xterm) approach. I am interested in W2K terminal server because
my customers sometimes run proprietary windows programs (no source code)
and since the Xterms can run ICA client we can use the same Xterm for
both system and just <Alt><Tab> between programs.
Now that as you say W2k has user limits to a point where a single user
on a thin client _cannot_ in any way do anything to make it unusable
from other clients I'll consider using it if I have to. (how much is per
seat license?)
But Linux (and *BSD) does everything I need it to do. Is more stable
than any MS OS. It doesn't needlessly suck up memory for the GUI and
video driver on the server. And it is free I don't really see why I (or
anybody else in my position) should use NT.
Linux is so flexible and I have used it to do things I could _NEVER_ do
with NT.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: 26 Oct 2000 02:10:28 GMT
. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> I'll admit that. It's true.
:> We don't need a magazine link for that one.
: Indeed. Its one of those "experience" things.
: Also, that awful netscape bus error bug which exists in the linux
: version appears to completely disappear when run under linux binary
: emulation under freebsd...:)
: Proof of this?
: It doesnt ever crash.
This isn't necessarily a good thing - some OS's won't automatically
error out when following a null pointer - they are set up so that the
low zero page addresses are acceptably usable memory. The netscape
bugs are still there, they just are being allowed to propigate and
build on each other.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Got it working. (Was Thinkpad+Linux)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:24:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With the help I received I got the Thinkpad up and running. FWIW my
> friend is a school board member in a district where a bond issue will
> be coming up shortly to upgrade the computer labs. He has expressed
> interest in Linux so I offered to set him up with a Linux distribution
> on his laptop to try. Heck even if Linux was only used as a server and
> for the proposed satellite uplink etc, they could save a fortune.
> Meaning "I" would save a fortune as well.
>
> I pay taxes too :)
>
> Thanks again!
>
> claire
That's very nice.
I considered introducing Linux and decided the best idea was to
just let Microsoft fall to pieces first.
It's easier to introduce things when you have a monopoly.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:34:05 GMT
In article <aVJJ5.86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Goldhammer wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have had some very limited exposure to low level VMS, and am an NT
> > kernel developer. While reading some of the NT DDK stuff, it had
> > occurred to more more than once that, just as MS did before with
QDOS,
> > they did about the same thing with VMS.
>
> I've also had some exposure to low level VMS. In the mid through late
80s,
> my employer sent me to virtually every class DEC offered on the VAX,
> including VMS Internals I and II. Reading the article you cited rang
bell
> after bell with me. I've never even used NT, much less been exposed
to its
> internals, but after reading that article I suspect that I would find
it
> very familiar.
>
> A couple of questions occurred to me while reading. One of my
favorite
> features of VMS was its file versioning concept. Did the VMS guys
bring
> that to NT? Also, why didn't they use swapping in NT? And does NT
use the
> huge number of inter-related user and process privileges that VMS did?
> Playing with those privileges was crucial to tuning a VMS system.
>
> I have no doubt whatever that NT is in large part based on VMS. One
thing
> clinched it for me: the 32 priority levels, with the top 16 being
> "real-time" and the bottom 16 subject to "boosting." It's a good
system,
> and clearly not coincidental.
>
> Thanks for pointing to this article. I learned something interesting
today.
>
> jwb
>
>
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 26 Oct 2000 02:42:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
>What I'd like to know just for fun what the record is for _continuous_ uptime
>
>for a Linux box. It could be in the YEARS!
Check uptime.net
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:55:00 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> My impression of the average OS/2 advocate remains unchanged....
>
> *plonk*
Looking in COOA for an example of an "average" OS/2 user is not unlike looking
in a maximum security prison complex for an example of an average man.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
