Linux-Advocacy Digest #250, Volume #30 Wed, 15 Nov 00 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: RedHat BugList Summary ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Ayende Rahien")
Speed of JAVA / was: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Roland
Mainz)
Help!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! (Marc Richter)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("GoDrex")
Re: Debian Sells Stale Beef (Mike Raeder)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (Mike Raeder)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity ("Mike")
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Donn Miller)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Rasputin)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Help!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:13:57 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JpqQ5.20582$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Also, for whoever was trying to say the the MFT could deal with millions
> of files, this article says 12% of the disk is the limit.
You can change that, duh!
12% is the default, MFT can take as much as 50% of the NTFS volume.
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/winnt/optntfs.asp
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RedHat BugList Summary
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:01:22 GMT
"Marc Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:14:06 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> As far as I can tell, Debian has zero security bugs for 2.2.
> >>
> >> > Security Alerts from 2000
> >>
> >> Yes, and they're all fixed, it seems.
> >
> >There were so many I didn't check if there were fixes for all.
> >
> >
>
> What kills me is this idea that discovering bugs in any software is bad.
>
> You can't fix what you don't know is broken.
>
> Hiding and pretending that bugs and exploits don't exist don't make
> them magically go away.
>
> It seems that opponents of Open Source laugh at the number of reported
> bugs and exploits, without realizing that it's only by admitting flaws
> and fixing them that software gets better. And just because
> proprietary software houses don't give full access to all discovered bugs
> doesn't mean that they don't exist. Man, it's become a matter of common
> practice in the gaming community to accept that the first release or 2
> of any major product will more than likely contain showstoppers. (Vampire,
> Diablo 2, anything from Interplay, ad naseum) The customers bitch, moan
> and deal with it...but can't do anything until the company gets it's act
> together and writes patches.
>
> If you're naive enough to shrug off the thousands of bugs in a
> complicated product like Linux or Windows 2000 or, for that matter,
> anything bigger than a small script or utility, then you're a bit of
> a fool. If you think that because you don't get to see them because
> you can't see the code somehow makes them not impact you, then you're
> a blind fool as well.
The only people being naive here are the penguinistas. We have heard
the continual mantra that OSS is superior, produces less bugs, if ANY
bugs at all, because of all these "reviewers" that constantly review
EVERY SINGLE line of code ALL THE TIME.
However, we know this to be false and the numbers speak for themselves.
- OSS is superior
* Then why are there more bugs in Linux than any other of the
closed source projects combined?
- OSS yields less bugs
* This is obviously false
- OSS software (Linux specifically) is reviewed constantly by many people
ensuring the quality of the software and eliminating most bugs BEFORE
its released
* If this is true, then either the reviewers are incompetent, or there
are SO MANY bugs that an army of reviewers still couldn't catch them
in a lifetime.
- All Linux code is reviewed over and over again to assure quality
* This has to be false. It appears only certain, high profile, segments
are reviewed.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:16:17 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ROFL... do you even know what "enterprise" means?
>
> Apparently not.
>
> > I'm talking big tasks (of which Linux falls flat on its face) like
> > running a multi-hundred-gigabyte database, running a SAP application
> > server, PeopleSoft, BAAN, or any number of enterprise ERP, SRP, MRP-
> > type applications.
>
> I'm sure you'll list the "enterprises" where NT does this job?
On shining example is Microsoft itself. They have approx. 20,000 employees
in Redmond alone, let alone world wide. They use SAP running on Windows 2000
and SQL Server 2000.
Win2K/SQL2K have set the TCP-C performance record and taken spots 1,2,3,4,7, and
8.
Here's a whole list of MS case studies, independent press releases, news
stories, etc about people using Win2K in enterprise environments and making
tons of money doing it:
Linux wouldn't be able to handle any of these situations, I'm fairly certain.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/profiles/default.asp
>
> > It can't. Why not? Because there are so many built in design flaws
> > in the Linux kernel alone (not to mention 3rd party add-ons) that it
> > would choke.
>
> Really?
>
> > Examples? Lack of multithreading in the networking stack that serializes
> > all TCP/IP traffic on one NIC
>
> And NT or Win2000 or any other OS for that matter can send multiple
> packets at the same time? Impressive!
With multiple NICs? Yes. It can process incoming and outgoing data on multiple
NICs at the same time with a properly designed and built multithreaded kernel
and networking stack. Linux, as proven, cannot.
> > and practically halts the OS during heavy traffic loads.
>
> That's nonsense. I don't have any Gbit ethernet cards to try it on,
> but I can comfortably saturate a 100Mbit segment without my old
> Pentium Pro breaking out a sweat.
Um... you don't even know what we're talking about do you?
> You realize, of course, that for a four processor Dell, currently
> Linux beats NT on SPECWEB99 almost by a factor of three.
With the web server running in the kernel. That's no victory.
> Linux only scales linearly to four processors,
Um... no OS scales lineraly to four processors. The only one that's
come close is Win2K with certain applications (like the airline
route calculation application as demonstrated during the Win2K launch)
> with eight you only see about 50%
> further improvement. NT, on the other hand, doesn't have numbers on
> eight CPU's, I wonder why?
We're talking Win2K. Win2K has been demonstrated on 32 processors.
> Last time I heard, Linux also outperformed NT on SAP benchmarks.
But the benchmarks were pulled because there were doubts and possible
mistakes.
> DB2 Magazine thinks Linux is ready to run - and in fact, a recommended
> platform for - IBM's DB2 UDB.
However, IBM doesn't trust Linux because it, itself submitted Win2K/DB2/
Netfinity numbers to TPC. I guess IBM doesn't think Linux is enterprise
ready (do anyone besides you guys?)
> Linux may not replace mainframes yet, but scalability and performance
> are ceasing to be the reason.
In about 10 years, they should have all the flaws worked out.
> > Lack of large file support in the filesystem
>
> It's not a file system issue, upgrade to a modern kernel, and start
> creating large files.
s/modern/development, buggy, untested/
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:32:14 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zurQ5.20591$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > I've forgotten the details I found at the time, but I thought it was
> more
> > > like that would be the theoretically maximum number for the largest
> > > drive NTFS could handle, but what it actually did was
> > > allocate some arbitrary maximum size that the MFT should be
> > > when you formatted (probably as the ratio of your disk size to the
> > > theoretical max size...), and when it grew to this size you were
> > > fried.
> >
> >
> > You can change MFT size quite easily.
> > Of course, you need to know how, but isn't it true everywhere?
>
> No, that isn't the kind of thing you should have to know,
> it should be in a quick reference program that matches
> the version of format you are running.
That isn't something you need to know? Wow.
They how would you use it?
Beside, it took me less than a minute to find how to change the MFT size.
------------------------------
From: Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Speed of JAVA / was: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:31:40 +0100
James Hutchins wrote:
> > > I hope that the two projects merge in the future in a language less
> > > sucky than either C or C++.
> >
> > Agreed. They should write it in Java. That way, KDE and GNOME could run on
> > an array of embedded applications (such as the Palm pilot). We'll
> > see a lot less of Windows CE. I'm tired of seeing Windows CE running on
> > embedded applications.
>
> Java? Please, NO! I have a NEED for SPEED!! I don't think even hotspot can
> make up for the performance hit I'd take with java. When doing complex
> analyses on up to 10 gigs of byte-sized time series data, even a 15% speed
> hit is significant. So why accept it when you can just use C++?
JAVA isn't slow. JAVA apps. running on modern JDKs (like 1.3) can be as
fast as normal C++ code - and some code even runs faster as in C++.
JAVA-based (Multithreaded) MPEG 2 encoder/decoder comes in mind...
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\__\/\/__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/O /==\ O\ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
(;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Help!!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:30:40 GMT
Hi,
I am a beginner on learning Linux. In my PC, I've already installed
Win98. Now I also want to install linux in order to dual-boot between
2 os. But every time when i am going on the last stage of installation--
----"Lilo setup", whatever i do , Lilo can't be installed.
If i choose to use SCSI device, it looks like being ok. But when the
computer reboots, i can only see many blinking lines on my screen,
which means i can neither work on win98, nor Linux.
If i choose not to use SCSI device, Lilo can't be installed and SETUP
can't be finished.
Because there are some bad sectors on my hard-disk, i wonder whether
Lilo is just going to be installed on those bad sectors, which leads
the problem i get stuck in.
There is anyone to help me to point out the reason and a way to solve
this problem.
(There is no any SCSI device on my computer.)
Thanks!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:29:08 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:22:26 GMT...
...and Rasputin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <Matthias Warkus> wrote:
> >It was the 14 Nov 2000 09:16:56 -0600...
> >...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I hope that the two projects merge in the future in a language less
> >> > sucky than either C or C++.
> >>
> >> Agreed. They should write it in Java. That way, KDE and GNOME could run on
> >> an array of embedded applications (such as the Palm pilot).
> >
> >They already do without Java (essentially, all you need is a platform
> >that runs Linux, and most embedded systems do).
>
> I think the ideal goal of any desktop environment should be language
> independance.
GNOME is pretty close (last time I checked, we had bindings for C,
C++, Objective C, Perl, Python, Ruby, Dylan, Haskell, Guile etc., and
that is GNOME bindings, not just GTK bindings).
> Java has bindings to CORBA, as does almost everything else.
>
> Sure, you take a performance hit, but for GUIs that's a bit of a non-issue.
*Especially* for GUIs it's an issue. There's hand-optimised assembler
code in GNOME (in gdkpixbuf, to be exact), and it's there for a
reason.
mawa
--
Only the Objectivists have an answer to all our problems, and it's
wrong. -- Hans Huettel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Richter)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:58:38 -0500
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:52:24 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Milton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:04 +1000, "steve erntner"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >how hard is it to get drivers for aztech sound cards???
>>
>> In Linux, it's relatively simple.
>> http://lhd.zdnet.com/db/searchproduct.cgi?_catid=12
>>
>Linux does seem to support alot of discontinued products.
>
>> >all i want are win2k drivers for em...but do they exist?
>nooooooooooooooooo
>> >im about to break down and cry
>>
>> Don't use second-rate OS's and you won't be easily disappointed.
>
>He shouldn't have bought from a second rate sound card company, Aztech went
>out of business over a year ago.
>
* alert! alert! Double-standard detected! *
You know, one of the points about Windows *.* that is always harped upon
is how great driver support happens to be for peripherals. That
vendors make Windows drivers first and everyone else gets sloppy
seconds, if anything at all.
I'm got an ATI Rage Fury Pro that's less than a year old. Still doesn't
have non-beta 3D Win2k drivers. And the beta level drivers are very buggy.
So what is it? Does the driver support for Windows only count as a benefit
when it's good? Or when the driver is non-existent or crashes the system,
then driver support or lack thereof is not a Windows issue? Because that's
the game Wintrolls seem to want to play. If so, Linux as a whole can't be
blamed for bad or non-existent drivers. Same game, same rules.
Of course, that's merely a pissing point for advocacy --- it doesn't
help the end user of either OS who can't use his device <grin>
--
Marc A. Richter I&R Deployed Support
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
------------------------------
From: "GoDrex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:25:47 GMT
sounds like you have a problem with your configuration
--
"...hey it's the *21st* century,
whatever you can do to have a good time
let's get on with it,
so long as it doesn't cause a murder..."
Frank Zappa (slightly
updated)
NP:
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "tklso@pklif" wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob says...
> > >
> > >http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
> > >
> > >Note that in this survey of the longest uptimes, every single one of
> > >them is running some form of Unix. Not even one single one is running
> > >any Microsoft OS, even Windows 2000.
> >
> > this is not fair.
> >
> > windows OS's are designed for ease of use and not for staying up
longest.
> >
> > you really can't have it both ways. If you want a pretty looking OS,
> > you have to put up with a crash here and there. If you want a solid
> > OS like unix, you have to put up with not having all those pretty
windows
> > on the desktop.
> >
> > it is a matter of choice. that is why unix is used for servers, and
windows
> > for the desktop. desktop system do not have to stay up too long, unlike
> > servers.
> >
>
> speak for yourself. I'd *like* to have my desktop stay up for as long as
> i'm going to use it. I let my system stay on overnight even if i'm not
> using it as there is no reason why i should turn it off and wait for it
> to boot up again the next day when I decide i want to use it.
> Unfortunately Windows likes to take *a lot* of breaks and therefore I
> have to reboot if i want to keep doing what i was in the middle of doing
> before the whole system went down b/c of one program croaked. Even if
> the system doesn't crash I have to reboot b/c Windows likes using up
> resources but doesn't like giving them back and of course after a while
> my System resources are "less than 2%".
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian Sells Stale Beef
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:28:28 -0500
Ioi Lam wrote:
>
> I wanted to do some PocketLinux development (www.pocketlinux.com) and
> they recommended Debian. So I drive down to my local store to get myself
> a copy. There is no production date on the box, no version number, no
> Linux version, no expiration date. Do they expect their users to be
> homeless crack addicts that will put anything down their throat?
The most disturbing thing is this guy's got an @sun.com
e-mail. If you can grok Solaris, you shouldn't have too
tough of a time with Linux.
Must be a cheap hire. :)
(No flamage, just couldn't reisist the opportunity for a
joke)
--
My Australian Shepherd is smarter than your honor student
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:33:12 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Close. They stopped being a tech company, and changed
> into a cult-company.
>
> Microsoft's entire business strategy is based upon
> promulgating the Gates/Microsoft religion
Maybe Bill Gates read Dianetics and decided that he could do
the cult biz better than L. Ron Hubbard.
Keep your eyes out for Microsoft's Scientology take-over! :)
--
My Australian Shepherd is smarter than your honor student
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:27:01 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Moderator wrote:
...
> > > I remember before Win2000 came out, they dubbed Windows 2000 one of
the
> > > greatest works in the history of mankind, and compared it to the
> > > pyramids of Egypt and some other things. No joke.
> >
> > The pyramids never crashed.
> >
> Correction, they have an uptime measured in the thousands of years, with
> an amazing rate of stability. Granted, this amount of uptime does tend
> to fragment heaps and erode resources, but most pyramid 1.x systems are
> still up. There were a couple early falures of pyramid 1.x, but this was
> admin error.
Hehe.
To be fair, the pyramids we look at today were actually second or third
generation (or other, depending on your definition). I seem to recall that
some of the earlier designs had sides that were too steep, and tended to
crumble (collapse? slide?). The remains of the older pyramids are still
there, but they're not in very good shape.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donn Miller)
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 15 Nov 2000 09:30:32 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harri Haataja) writes:
> Didn't you hear about Sun and other UNIX vendors jumping for GNOME as
> the unified UNIX desktop?
>
> M$ wants to hit that, I think.
Funny how MS doesn't want to sue over KDE/Qt. That particular project
accomplishes the same exact goal as GNOME, but yet I haven't heard of
companies willing to support KDE like they have GNOME.
How exactly is MS going to stop an open source project like GNOME/Gtk? This
should be interesting. What I think they'll accomplish is stopping vendors
like Sun from incorporating GNOME into their desktops.
As before, it's funny how MS should be suing over look 'n' feel. Remember
the Macintosh and the Amiga?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:40:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <Matthias Warkus> wrote:
>It was the Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:22:26 GMT...
>...and Rasputin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>GNOME is pretty close (last time I checked, we had bindings for C,
>C++, Objective C, Perl, Python, Ruby, Dylan, Haskell, Guile etc., and
>that is GNOME bindings, not just GTK bindings).
>
<nods> that's the point I was making; didn't know there were so many,
though.
>> Java has bindings to CORBA, as does almost everything else.
>>
>> Sure, you take a performance hit, but for GUIs that's a bit of a non-issue.
>*Especially* for GUIs it's an issue. There's hand-optimised assembler
>code in GNOME (in gdkpixbuf, to be exact), and it's there for a
>reason.
Yeah, since 1.2 GNOME has gotten quite usable.
So are there plans to use imlib2 in there at all?
I've not seen any definitive benchmarks, but it
seems a fair bit faster (than gdkpixbuf) to me.
--
Rasputin.
Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns.
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:02:03 +0000
A certain Evan DiBiase, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> My point is - is it a cripple if the functionality is rarely, if ever
>> going to be used in the first place ?
>
>Yes.
>
>If I blow your legs off, you're still crippled, even if you were rarely,
>if ever, going to use those legs again.
Not valid at all since that "if" is highly unlikely. All able bodied
humans take the use of their legs for granted. Losing legs would
undeniably be a cripple.
A better analogy might be to compare it with donating a kidney or bone
marrow.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:03:06 +0000
A certain Les Mikesell, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>Is there some trick to it? I had a win2k server configured for
>administration
>via TS and couldn't get a Citrix client on Linux to connect.
The Linux client worked straight out of the box for me. I take it you've
done all the obvious stuff, eg you can ping the server from your linux
box.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:18:01 +0000
A certain Les Mikesell, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> What freely redistributable versions are available for those platforms ?
>> The Citrix client is free on all of the platforms I listed.
>
>The X source is available for anyone who wants to port it.
As yet no-one has come up with a free replacement for the (buggy and
slow) XFree86 implementation.
>How much does the Citrix server cost?
I imagine it would be competitive with a commercial X implementation.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:55:13 GMT
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:08:27 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because your an idiot. My modem works fine. Even my winmodem works
>fine. I recently picked up an Epson 880 printer for $150. It works
Ah yes the classic Linonut response "because it works for me everyone
else must be an idiot".
Do your fellow Linonuts and future Linonuts a favor and take a walk
over to some of the setup groups and let the folks asking these same
questions over and over again know how well Linux works for "you" and
how the problem must be with them. "All of them".
I'm sure in all of their frustration trying to get Linux to work, they
will be happy to hear how well it works for "you".
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:55:14 GMT
My my but we are getting nasty today.
You're starting to sound like jedi :(
Pretty soon you might start adding the word "hardly" to every
sentence.
claire
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:56:28 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> First you have to figure out how to make wine work.
>>
>> claire
>
>No, first YOU have to get a brain. Installing wine using rpm is trivially
>simple.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:01:07 GMT
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:33:39 -0500, Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Don't use second-rate OS's and you won't be easily disappointed.
All the more reason not to use Linux.
BTW Aztec went under a while back.
Linux does seem to lead the league in supporting rigormortis hardware.
I guess the designers released the specs of the cards into the Open
Sewers world as they were being handed their pink slips. Sort of like
a last sweet revenge.
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Help!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:02:18 GMT
Gary, are you out there?
claire
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:30:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi,
> I am a beginner on learning Linux. In my PC, I've already installed
>Win98. Now I also want to install linux in order to dual-boot between
>2 os. But every time when i am going on the last stage of installation--
>----"Lilo setup", whatever i do , Lilo can't be installed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:02:39 GMT
Sorry for the confusion Chad, I will address them properly in the
future. Guess I have to add another word to my spell checker.
claire
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 03:08:30 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 14 Nov 2000 12:49:22 -0600, "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >AND, even if a divine miracle occured (or you soldered the cmos battery to
>> >something else for some unknown reason) ... um, change the $1.19 battery? I
>> >really can't believe how broke linux users are... sad...
>>
>>
>> The Linonuts are not broke, they are just cheap.
>
>Please. The politically correct term is "Penguinistas". They have worked
>very hard to earn this title, please do not strip them of it.
>
>-C
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
