Linux-Advocacy Digest #864, Volume #29 Thu, 26 Oct 00 05:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (Perry Pip)
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (Perry Pip)
Sole sourcing doesn't save money (Was: Microsoft Speaks German! (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Terminology ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Ms employees begging for food ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE2.0 released! (mitch)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: hardware problem (Thing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: 26 Oct 2000 06:12:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:13:52 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 24 Oct 2000 17:23:33 -0500,
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:19:48 -0400,
>> >> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Yea right. I have have grown to accept that every single article about
>> >Linux
>> >> >will likely contain at least one slam against Microsoft. The whole Linux
>> >> >campaign is built upon negativity towards Microsoft.
>> >>
>> >> What "Linux campaign". Who's running this campaign?
>> >
>> >Just ask yourself: What linux user community?
>> >
>>
>> I guess English isn't your first language:
>>
>> community != campaign.
>>
>> Look them up in the dictionary.
>
>How do you buy groceries at the grocery store when you can't comprehend
>simple logic.
>
>Shall I explain it in 3rd grader terms for you?
>
>The Linux COMMUNITY is on a CAMPAIGN.
Nice try. You're wrong. You're the one on a campaign of lies and FUD,
as others have already pointed out.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: 26 Oct 2000 06:15:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:24:09 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Linux.org is not the "front page" of Linux. Furthermore, it is not
>> that unusual at all for a business to put an independant link
>> comparing itself to a competitor on it's home page.
>
>Ah... when it does something good (Linux.org) then it is, when it's being
>stupid (most of the time) it isn't?
No one is using any double standard. Linux.org is a separate private
entity that happens to be in the business of promoting Linux, that's
all.
>This ambiguity in the Linux community
>is rather retarded.
No, "Chad", you are retarded for making such generalizations.
>
>It only serves to your detriment that you can't organize anything successfully,
>let alone an OS development effort.
Linux developers are busy organizing their code, not stupid propaganda
campaigns.
> business that have established
>themselves and don't feel they need to make up for any major downfal in the
>OS/product don't feel the need to constantly compare themselves against
>their competitors in open public.
http://www.racecondition.com/msad.jpg
>>
>> >
>> >And then I notice the next paragraph talk about how hard it is to upgrade MS
>> >Office. As if adding or upgrading Star Office in Linux is easier than
>> >inserting the disk and hitting "Enter" a few times like MS Office.
>>
>> LIAR!!.
>>
>> He said "Do you know how hard it is to update even 100 PC's
>> with a new version of Windows and Office?" That takes a little more
>> than inserting the disk and hitting "Enter" a few times.
>
>Not really.
Irrelevent. My point was JS/PL didn't even read the article.
>It's all rather easily scriptable through the setup INF files
>and system policy files. I've done it several times.
You've been proven a blatent liar dozens of times on this NG. Thus, I
see no reason to believe you.
>The more computers
>the easier, actually, because that justifies spending more time up front
>making the whole process more automated. Spend a couple hours getting
>all the image boot disks ready, the software in place on the server and
>the automated INF files ready, then just walk around (if they're not
>in a lab) insert the disks, reboot the machine and watch the fireworks
>happen.
No, first you spend $50,000+ on licensing fees. Then you spend days
(if you're lucky), or months (average case), or years (if you're not
lucky) troubleshooting BSOD's. That's the real world. I see it daily.
>>
>> >For an article (supposedly) about Linux, Microsoft sure gets a good amount
>> >of mention, as usual.
>> >
>>
>> Less than 10% of an interview with one person.
>
>But there was still a mention. Why? Why do supposed Linux supports feel the
>need to constantly bash MS?
He isn't bashing MS. He's merely pointing out that Microsoft can't
take advantage of the open nature of Linux. If you think that's
bashing, that's your emotional hang up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Sole sourcing doesn't save money (Was: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: 26 Oct 2000 06:15:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:51:06 -0400,
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>An open operating system can mutate already times.
"An open operating system can mutate some times". This is true. So can
a closed operating system and they often do.
>With Windows 2000 however
>there are all services and services from a hand.
"Windows 2000 offers all services from a single source". True.
>That thus really saves time
>and for cash.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Depending on a sole source for your solutions
results in vendor lock-in, which ultimately costs big in several
ways. I've seen dozens of people in my career fall for the same
fallacy you fall for: that sole sourcing will simplify things. In the
long run, it never does.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:40:54 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aVJJ5.86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Remember, NT was designed to be a portable OS, as such they needed to limit
the number of priviledge levels. In fact, NT makes use of only 2.
The file versioning concept was part of the file system. Since the NT file
system is nothing like the VMS file system, no.
Some other key areas. NT uses memory mapped I/O for file I/O, IIRC VMS did
the same thing. Also, I believe there may be a number of very similar
function calls in the native API (Win32 isn't the native API).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Terminology
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:35:01 GMT
Kondara MNU/Linux
What the heck does MNU stand for? I checked their site, and can't find
out what MNU stands for. Maybe somekind of wacky acronym for
MultiLingual and Multi-platform, which is what they trumpet at their
site. But 2 languages and 2 platforms doesn't seem like a lot to crow
about........
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:08:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Caveman) writes:
[Since this isn't all that relevant for comp.arch, I'd mail this
reply, but...]
> We also seem to have such fragmentation in the Linux community
> [...] unmarketable [...] no discipline [...] moron sysadmin [...]
> That's why many big computer vendors like HP are dropping it since it's
> essentially impossible to support as a reliable, deliverable platform
> because there are too many cowboys running around.
Well, I'd like to say that the solution for somebody who wishes to
support "Linux" is to support "Red Hat Linux". I'd expect cowboy
admins to accept that some assembly might be required.
Unfortunately, RH has a history of shipping not-so-well thought out
releases, ripe with beta versions, their own hacks, and whatnot. Not
good, in particular since they're the market leader, and certainly the
most visible distribution.
The other solution is of course for HP and whomever to shrink-wrap
their own brand of Linux, and try to get commercial software companies
to support it - perhaps offer some assistance in conformance testing.
But HP in particular is operating in a market niche furthest from
Linux; AFAICS, they sell really expensive systems to customers who
don't really care about the price. Linux is for people who want a
decent system at low cost capital-wise, but perhaps somewhat higher
labor cost (although that's arguable).
> On the other hand, I can patch a NT4.0 box up to rev in a half hour
> or less by simply clicking on "Product Update" on www.windowsupdate.com.
[...]
> I am really starting to wonder if UNIX or Linux is worth the bother.
I really think you should have a look at Debian. With probably the
least streamlined installation procedure, it is a treat when it's up
and running, in particular with a good internet connection.
Update all packages to the latest releases:
# apt-get update; apt-get upgrade
...and answer yes (i.e. return) when it has calculated total download
sizes.
Install some particular piece of software:
# apt-get install mswordview
...and as above. And there's a vast number of applications, the
current stable distribution comes on three CD's, with source on three
more.
Upgrade from stable to unstable:
# vi /etc/apt/sources.list
[ s/stable/unstable ]
# apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade
You get to specify how interactive you want configuration of software
packages (with non-interactive installs mailing you later on what you
need to do to get up and running), and there's a pretty good bug
tracking system, and in general it's very easy on the administrator.
And, there's dselect, which is a screen/menu based installation
utility, I use it mostly when I need to search for a package -- when I
don't have the complete name. (e.g. /curses -> ncurses, ncurses-dev..)
Really impressively, the system seems to converge towards stability,
I've occasionally mucked up an install, but when apt-get is working, I
just repeatedly use apt-get upgrade and/or dselect, and somehow it
resolves dependencies and installs a few packages each time, and ends
up working and complete.
Contrast with NT, where every application adds more cruft, and in the
end you need to reinstall everything to clean things out.
Unfortunately, Debian is lacking strong commercial backing - it's more
of a community effort -- elections instead of IPOs -- which tend to
deter commercial entities. To paraphrase a saying, they'd rather have
a system that doesn't work, than a model they don't trust.
> I'd gladly nearly sell my soul for an affordable S/390, but you can't
> license a decent development environment for less than the cost of a
> nice home with a Ferrari in the driveway.
Why? I'm not sure the rant above gives the reason? (I've never seen
an S/390).
> As for your arguments so-and-so UNIX vs. BSD or whatever, how many
> cowboy Linux versions are out there? It is impossible to keep
> individuals from "upgrading" their own systems in a corporate
> environment such that the whole thing becomes utterly unsupportable.
> It's hard enough to keep people from deciding to install W2K to
> replace their NT4.0 installation and then complain that it doesn't
> interoperate.
Give them a diskless client? Or at least don't give them the root
password. Generally, I think people who do this should be gathered in
by the IT department, and used as a resource by them. Give them an
additional PC to hack on, if necessary. It is much easier to protect
Unix than NT from misguided users (although Win2K might be better in
this respect).
(Of course, I'm an example of what you outline, as soon as I
got my NT workstation, I found an old box to run Linux on, and I'm
using it's predecessor to type this. It now also holds internal web
pages for my department, runs bugzilla, broadcasts mp3s, and has a
couple of other uses - job security, you know. :-)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:51:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jan Vorbrueggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Caveman) writes:
>
> > As for your arguments so-and-so UNIX vs. BSD or whatever, how many
> > cowboy Linux versions are out there? It is impossible to keep
> > individuals from "upgrading" their own systems in a corporate
environment
> > such that the whole thing becomes utterly unsupportable. It's hard
> > enough to keep people from deciding to install W2K to replace their
> > NT4.0 installation and then complain that it doesn't interoperate.
>
> I would have thought that such behaviour was grounds for immediate
dismissal.
>
> > I once wrote a SLIP driver for Solaris 2.4 that had fully
independent
> > mutex locks on all four incoming and outgoing data paths. Solaris
is
> > so finely grained in that way that some people have complained that
it's
> > TOO finely grained, though you don't have to abuse it to the point
that
> > you waste cycles in too much spin, but you can have, in my opinion,
more
> > kernel I/O threads running at once in parallel on a Solaris 8 box
than
> > anything short of S/390 or ACP/TPF.
>
> Or VMS.
>
> Jan
>
Exactly how are these "cowboys" getting root passwd? Perhaps the IT
staff needs some "Immediate Dismissal". Is there such a thing as a good
IT department? I have yet to see one.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:53:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The black helicopters are coming for you right now.
>
> claire
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:47:08 +0100, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would
allow
> >these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty close
to
> >zero I would say.
> >
> >So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot them?
> >- Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
> >- They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
> >competent).
> >- They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that
look
> >a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read like
> >advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and "Fortune
> >500")
> >- Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and MS
> >lives on upgrades)
> >- Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
> >- Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
> >- Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like ("great
for
> >mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
> >
> >Any others?
> >
> >So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
> >---
> >Nick
> >
> >
>
>
Now where'd I put that rocket-launcher????
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:03:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. Proof, in writing (I'm not disagreeing, I would just like to see
> some proof).
>
> 2. If #1 is true, how do I collect my money?
>
> claire
One could be very uncharitable here.....
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:32:54 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> The black helicopters are coming for you right now.
> >>
> >
> >It's well known that Microsoft pays people to post FUD to this
newsgroup.
> >
> >
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:47:08 +0100, Nick Condon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would
allow
> >> >these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty
close to
> >> >zero I would say.
> >> >
> >> >So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot
them?
> >> >- Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
> >> >- They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
> >> >competent).
> >> >- They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that
look
> >> >a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read
like
> >> >advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and
"Fortune
> >> >500")
> >> >- Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and
MS
> >> >lives on upgrades)
> >> >- Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
> >> >- Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
> >> >- Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like
("great for
> >> >mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
> >> >
> >> >Any others?
> >> >
> >> >So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
> >> >---
> >> >Nick
> >> >
> >> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: KDE2.0 released!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:18:08 GMT
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:49:30 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Yeah right we've heard that before!
>
S'true! I use both winNT and solaris at work, and really the only
thing I would like is for several of the apps which I use to be
available for linux. Either that, or I`d like windows stability to be
increased 10-fold, and a posix compliant cli. I can dream I s'pose...
>> Well, I did mention graphite. Others are EVWM, Geoshell, Icespere,
>> Darkstep, eggshell, Europa, Dimension, Darkpro Studio, Reveal,
>> 3dtop... plus many more. Most of these are alpha/beta versions, but
>> Geoshell and Litestep are very mature pieces of software, with large
>> followings, and with good reason.
>>
>
>Bugy right? lets not forget that!
>
Depends on the 'theme' being used, as many use custom modules which
*may* be buggy. Using the default theme, and tinkering around with
that is more stable than the ms shell, and a darn sight more
responsive as well.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:17:06 GMT
In article <hPLI5.3092$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > We all know the text book definition of an operating system: manages
> > memory, scedules programs, etc.
> >
> > By that definition, DesqView and other DOS extenders were operating
> > systems. Is DesqView an operating system? If your answer is yes,
then
> > you need to read no further.
> >
> > What makes DesqView NOT an OS is that a previous OS is not removed,
but
> > extended.
>
> Gee, I guess that makes mkLinux not an OS then. Sice mkLinux doesn't
remove
> Mach, and in fact depends on Mach for many functions.
>
> That is what you mean, right?
>
>
True. Here "linux" are merely services running on mach. Calling Windows
an OS is a little like calling a hurd service an OS unto itself.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:33:30 GMT
Vee have vays of making you ... upgrade!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:40:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:22:16 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> > > > Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I wouldn't mind variou various benchmark information on this as
well.
> > > > >The FreeBSD community isn't as visible as the Linux one, but
it's clear
> > > > >that, if there's an advantage to FreeBSD, it should be touted.
> > > > >
> > > > >And this looks like an advantage. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I was simply asking him to prove his statement, I don't know if
it is
> > > > true or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > FreeBSD is the FASTEST OPERATING SYSTEM in the WORLD.
> > > It just runs away from Linux 2.2 kernels.
> > >
> > > It still walks away from a linux 2.4 kernel but not fast enough
for
> > > me to give up all my driver support for the hardware.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD is limited on hardware support where Linux practically
> > > supports everything Windows does today. There is little left
> > > Linux doesn't support.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD just has that hangup BSD license which would theoretically
> > > allow BSDI to close the source and that's why I don't trust it.
> > >
> > > Linux uses GNU/GPL and you can trust that license.
> > >
> > > It's just that simple.
> > >
> >
> > That's pretty much it, bottom line, isn't it?. Sometimes I wish
*BSD
> > was as popular or more so, but it isn't. Whatever the reason,
whether
> > it is the past strings to AT&T, past court problems, or the license,
> > Linux has the momentum right now, and it's snowballing.
> >
>
> I don't think I would have much argument for the performance of
FreeBSD.
> FreeBSD could wip Linux's ass in a heartbeat. Linux could support
more
> hardware than FreeBSD however and has a better license.
>
> But FreeBSD is a bolt of lightning and it's only it's license which
> holds it back. That's it.
>
> >
> > > Now if somebody would just explain to me WHY Yahoo is dumping
> > > FreeBSD in favor of Linux then I would know everything....
> > >
> > > Why the Google contract?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >You could be nicer about it, you know. :-)
> > > >
> > > > He chose to BS ( in another thread) and unfortunately he got
caught
> > > > tossing around terms he knows nothing about.
> > > >
> > > > I don't try to argue programming, or network servers, because
"hello.c
> > > > was as far as I got.
> > > > Even Ebert at least post's proof, albeit sometimes a little
stretched,
> > > > of his comments.
> > > >
> > > > yttrx lies, lies and lies again. He gets caught all the time.
> > > >
> > > > claire
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>claire
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On 23 Oct 2000 19:19:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >[snip]
> > > > >
> > > > >>>http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/x18762.html
> > > > >
> > > > >This is not a benchmark, but it does look interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > >[snip]
> >
> > --
> > Surprise! You are the lucky winner of random I.R.S. Audit! Just
type
> > in your name and social security number. Please remember that
leaving
> > the room is punishable under law:
> >
> > Name #
>
> How did Claire get on this one!
>
> I thought I was talking to a dude on here!
>
> Tim Hanson I thought!
>
> Would you people just stay in your own threads please!
>
> Charlie
>
>
Can BSD be clustered like beowulf linux?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Thing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: nz.comp
Subject: Re: hardware problem
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:53:11 +1300
none wrote:
> small problem, I have a new 30G ATA66 Drive, with a new BX2000+ motherboard.
Are you using an ata66 cable? flashed to the latest BIOS? if not flash first.
Set the motherboard to mode 4, (turn off udma support in the bios) and install
RH, after that download a ready made ata66 2.2.16-3 img kernel.rpm from
ftp.redhat.co.nz (under updates for 6.2). Install it, set the m/b to ata66 and
boot.
What make is BX2000+ ? it doesnt ring a bell with me, some of the unbranded m/bs
are nightmares to try and get going support for the latest standards like ata 66
can be a joke, does win2k run OK? maybe take it back and get something decent if
its a no-name.
> Redhat 6.2 didnt like ATA66, so I switched off the ATA66 support, and moved
> the drive to plain IDE (ATA33), which for some reason the drive doesnt boot
> even with w2k or lilo on the MBR. I was intending use RH6.2, and upgrade to
> 2.4-test-xx, too support ATA66. I have 21G for Windows 2000, and 9G for
> Linux (8.5G Linux/500Mb Swap)
How much ram do you have? 120 swap matched to 128 meg of ram is usually enough
for most things.
I would suggest setting / (root) at 1 gig as hda1 as the first partition then 21
gig for Win2k then use up 8.5 as follows, 3.5 for /usr. 1 gig for /var the rest
as /home.
> but the problem, if i switch the drive back
> the ATA33 slot, install linux, how could I get W2K installed knowing that
> the drive wont boot from it.
> What I want is ATA66, Linux and W2K, working together, either with lilo or
> W2K bootloader.
>
> btw i dont wanna buy/download the latest version of any distro. Rh6.2 is
> good.
RH 7 is buggy as hell avoiding for now is a good idea.
Thing
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
