Linux-Advocacy Digest #292, Volume #30 Sat, 18 Nov 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows SUX (Gardiner Family)
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup (Gardiner Family)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Linux Sux (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: wahoo! I'm running now ("MH")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("MH")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("MH")
Re: Stick to a side issue when cornered (was Re: The Sixth Sense, (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT (Giuliano Colla)
RE: wahoo! I'm running now ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: Linux Sux ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: wahoo! I'm running now ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: Windows SUX ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT (Giuliano Colla)
RE: Linux Sux ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
RE: Alessandro Rubini's very interesting article on system calls... ("Pedro
Iglesias")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:59:31 +1300
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
The statement about risc vs. cisc is pretty shallow then you look at the
different RISC vendors, HP still continues selling PA-RISC workstations,
Compaq is pushing the next generation Alpha (due out next year), Sun Continues
with the development of even better RISC based processors, their latest
Ultra Sparc III (a little speed demon I might add), and MIPS used by SGI,
SONY and numerous other companies, it has been two years since SGI said,
"when MIPS starts to shows it age (ie x86 is faster) we will look for an
alternative processor to base our workstations on", 2 years later, has
not been accomplished. The issue with Apple has nothing to do with
the fundimentals of RISC technology, it is based around the scalability
problems with the PowerPC architecture, which, Apple (and, I think IBM)
are facing problems speeding up the PowerPC CPU.
<p>matt
<p>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message
<br><a href="news:GviR5.15776">news:GviR5.15776</a>
<br>> > Windows doesn't crash 3 times per day, and it runs a great many
games
<br>> > without crashing. IE is more stable than Netscape - and is quite
stable
<br>> > overall. Windows has several alternate desktops available. Several
<br>> > alternative office packages are available. Windows supports hardware
<br>> > better than linux does, and runs monitors at any frequency the
hardware
<br>> > supports.
<br>>
<br>> Ah yes, monitor refresh rates. Windows had this amazing problem -
it would
<br>> forget the type of my monitor. Then it would revert to "Default monitor".
<br>> Then I'd get 60Hz refresh! Took me ages to figure that one out.
<br>>
<br>> As to why it kept falling back to "Default" it's a fault in the registry,
<br>> it has a tendency to forget things...
<p>The registry doesn't "forget" things. It's a binary file.
how could it
<br>"remember" it's old setting? Answer: It can't. Thus
something is setting
<br>it to default. It could be that your monitor isn't sending the
proper
<br>signals to auto-detect it. You should try turning off the autodetect
and
<br>selecting your monitor manually.
<p>> > There are some terrific editors out there (like UltraEdit for instance),
<br>> > you simply have to pay for them. Some, particularly java ones,
are
<br>> > cross-platform and work fine on Windows.
<br>>
<br>> The basic editor Notepad is limited to 64k of text. WordPad isn't
but
<br>takes
<br>> a _long_ time to load a big file. Even the new DOS editor does it
better
<br>> and it can support around a megabyte of text!
<p>Not under NT/2000. Notepad can load any size file.
<p>> > The only point you make with any validity is that it doesn't support
<br>> > processors other than Intel x86-line ones - unless you mean NT,
which
<br>> > supports several others.
<br>>
<br>> Er, RISC supported has been dropped, Alpha support has been dropped...
so
<br>> which processors are we talking about here?
<p>IA-64. You can get the beta today if you're a member of the MSDN.
It's out
<br>there, and working.
<br>IA-64 is one step beyond RISC; EPIC. Explicitly Parallel
Instruction
<br>Computing.
<p>Besides, even Apple is considering dropping PowerPC and going Intel.</blockquote>
</html>
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:10:34 +1300
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I had the same problem with my old pentium 200MMX, however, is may be the
hardware itself as it kept freezing, however, on my Pentium 3, no problems,
you may want to run a full diagnostic program to detect if there is any
problems, if there is, the program will detect it (I can't remember the
name, but it checks everything).
<p>matt
<p>tom wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I installed Mandrake 7.1 last night and managed to
get on the internet
<br>today (will wonders never cease).
<p>However, while reading news with Netscape's (4.7x, I believe) Collabra,
<br>things totally locked up on me. Somehow I managed to get out
of kde
<br>and down to the command prompt.
<p>At that point while reading the man pages for "zip", things locked up
<br>again. Never could get out of that gracefully till I stumbled
up ctrl-
<br>q (iirc) which rebooted the computer. From there, I just gave
up and
<br>went back into Win98.
<p>Having read so much here about how Linux is so stable, I'm rather
<br>surprised at what happened. However, in trying Communicator in
the
<br>past, it locked up on me and I had to reboot Windows, so I suspect
the
<br>Linux version may be just as crappy.
<p>Is there a decent newsreader out there for Linux that also has the
<br>ability to view images, or is at least comparable to Free Agent?
<p>Tom
<p>Sent via Deja.com <a href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
<br>Before you buy.</blockquote>
</html>
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:23:07 +1300
Are you sad Chad because UNIX doesn't have all those pretty little icons and
pretty little themes you can select on Windows? resulting in you not being able to
utilize you MSCE (or MSCW (Microsoft Certified Wanker), aka "if you can use a
mouse and follow the wizard, volla, you're a Winblows NT admin"). The reason why
people use Sparc hardware is because it has been standardised and as a result,
with each upgrade, an admin will alway know that he will never face in unsupported
hardware in the updated release of Solaris. Also, all the hardware will work
together without any hitches (donot use the Sparc-crash crap, the Xenon chip faced
the same bug when 4 processors with 4 MB of cache kept resulting in server
crashes) and conflicts with other devices as third party devices are not only
certified "Solaris Compatible" but also "Sun Hardware Compatible".
matt
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:37:17 +0000
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Au contraire... code runs faster on Linux. Disk accesses work
> faster. The GUI is faster, screen updates are faster, booting
> is faster, response to the user while running background tasks
> is faster.
I did some simple benchmarks and found Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.2
run at about the same speed. I did some bench raytraying with POVray and
found Windows ran faster, even after making sure both had the same options.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:45:05 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, seeing as your scanner has become a paper weight based upon your
> choice to run Linux, I would suggest you burn it, in lieu of the coal.
Due to the magic that is LILO I can still boot Windows. You didn't think
I'd be dumb enough to blow that away did you?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:03:00 -0000
> > Works fine for me on Win95 and 98. For Christ's sake, the HELP command
has
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Only on upgrades. A fresh install from a Lose98 disk has no HELP command.
No Aaron, you're wrong again. I have never installed an upgrade version of
98. I have however installed 98 twice and 98SE once.
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:22:33 +0100
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
rich wrote:
>
> So I am slowly putting my RH 7.0 machine back together again -- after a
> very nasty experience with a bad hard disk and a flakey video card.
RH 7.0 sucks big time in my opinion. Especially for developpers because
you have to make extra binaries for it. (because of that damn compiler)
>
> Glitches: Specifying memory addresses for the NIC. It would be much
> better if there were some way of doing this automagically, but even if
> you have to do it by hand, a quick prompt that you should be using 0x
> style memory addresses would be a Good Thing. Sigh.
Hmm... my PCI nic's always get their adresses automatically, with PCI
cards there are no such problems.
>
> Nice things: I put the CD ROM in and it automounted. How cool is that?
Everywhere or only in GNOME? Because in gnome this was a standard
fuction long ago already.
> I'm also dancing in the virtual aisle because I finally, finally got
> Samba installed and configured.
Yeah, Samba's a bitch of a configurable application, pro is that you can
change everything, contra is that it's so terribly complicated, but it's
great and painless once you got it running (just like all of Linux,
understand it and stop worrying, I didn't touch a single config file for
months, my Rh 6.2 box just runs and runs and keeps running [it's
modified though, 2.4-test10 kernel, XF 4.0.1, Helix GNOME last version
etc.. etc.. etc..)
> And after probably 2 months of
> infrequent work (say, 1 or two hours a week,) and about 10 hours of
> concentrated effort, I'm beginning now to really understand this little
> box.
That's a kewl feeling isn't it, that's the moment where you think :
"Damn, it was harder than Windows, but I don't worry about anything
anymore, I can do anything I want, I can go anywhere I want today."
>
> The NT server is now dark, waiting for the moment when it will become
> the next Linux server on the network. I can't wait.
:o)))))))))))))))))))))
>
> --
> Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet.
Since when?
> The Internet: Designed for Unix.
Hmm... nah, rather the other way around.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:27:04 +0100
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> DOESN'T SUPPORT HARWARE.
It supports everything I have.
> WON'T INSTALL ON MODERN SYSTIMS.
Got a Tbird 800 running at 1050 Mhz with GeForce 2 GTS Ultra and an all
new and shiny Adaptec 29160 SCSI card.
> DOESN'T WORK WITH PRINTORS OR MADAMS.
Hmm.. you mean modem right? Well, mine does with ANY modem (exept
Winmodems, but I wouldn't buy one because of the crappy performance) ...
Printers? Euhmm... except for very few, it runs with everything you
want, with the gimp printer driver I can print better photo outputs with
my Epson than in Windows.
> SKANNERS DONT WORK.
My HP Scanjet SCSI works perfectly.
> CAMRAS DON'T WORK.
My PC100 works perfectly using GPhoto. My Webcam does too.
> HAS NO SOUND.
Yeah right. My SB PCI 128 does play MP3's using xmms and everything else
I want to play.
> DOESN'T RUN GAMES.
Quake 1-3, Unreal Tournament, Sim City 3000 and many many more
(www.lokigames.com)
> HAS 100 DIFFERNT EDITERS BUT NO DECENT BROWSER.
Mozilla Milestone 18 kicks ass. Opera does too.
> IS BUILT BY LUSERS FOR LUSERS.
Nah.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> LINUKS SUKX.....
Nope. Learn how to spell, troll.
>
> LEE
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:36:32 -0500
Nice reply. Refreshing not to read the usual cola trash. But,...
> > And after probably 2 months of
> > infrequent work (say, 1 or two hours a week,) and about 10 hours of
> > concentrated effort, I'm beginning now to really understand this little
> > box.
> That's a kewl feeling isn't it, that's the moment where you think :
> "Damn, it was harder than Windows, but I don't worry about anything
> anymore, I can do anything I want, I can go anywhere I want today."
This statement contradicts 90% of the cola mantra that linux is no harder to
use\learn than windows.
Which is it guys?
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:37:52 -0500
Terrible argument. You would lose the war for sure.
"WorLord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :
>
> ~ Universal Bullshit-To-English Translator Engine: ONLINE ~
>
> >Your problem is that you are trying to run Linux.
>
> "Computers were built for solitaire and minesweeper, weren't they?"
>
>
> >By all counts you have a killer system, especially in the multimedia
> >area. Why would you want to cripple it by running Linux?
> >Have you actually taken a good look at what types of programs are
> >availible for Linux in that area?
>
> "Linux doesn't have solitaire OR mindsweeper. Why use it?"
>
>
> >You will spend more time screwing around with your system than
> >listening to audio or watching video.
>
> "I couldn't get Linux to play my video CD... you know, the one where
> the horse is fucking the midget."
>
>
> >Why put chains on a great system like you have just to run Linsux?
> >Do yourself a favor, and save yourself a lot of headaches and run
> >Windows ME on your high end system.
>
> "After all, what fun is computing without the occational Melissa
> Virus?"
>
>
> >If you really want to learn Linux (not a bad idea) buy a junker p166
> >and run Linux on that.
> >Crap hardware and Linsux are a match made in heaven.
>
> "Can anyone help me get this damn WinModem working in Linux?"
>
> ~ Universal Bullshit-To-English Translator Engine: OFFLINE ~
>
> HTH, HAND
>
> --WorLord
>
> "You could spend an hour counting the petals in a flower
> It might take you a year to count the veins in each petal
> If you spent ten lifetimes, maybe you could count its cells...
>
> ...but you'd have completely missed the point
> You fuckhead."
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:41:50 -0500
> I'll agree with that!
> I'm at work, logged into my LinuxBox at home via dial-up PPP. I'm running
> multiple telnet connections. One is compiling a kernel, One is in Emacs
> where I'm editing a Perl script, Another is compiling KDE2.0 source RPMS.
At
> the same time, I'm sending more KDE2.0 RPMS via ftp, AND checking out the
> Perl script in IE explorer. At the same time, the local login is merrily
> running screensavers.
Just what the home user is wanting & needing to do all the time!
Still waiting for the peanut gallery to get it.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Stick to a side issue when cornered (was Re: The Sixth Sense,
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:44:49 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Giuliano Colla) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> >However it happens that the crappy MS implementation mixes up things.
> >
> >The bad choice made to have a single huge registry file (actually two,
> >but they're so mixed up you're obliged to consider as one), rules out
> >the possibility of performing a search each time it's required. It would
> >make the system unbearably slow. So the association informations are
> >loaded at boot and maintained by the OS itself. A bad initial choice
> >leads to a bad solution.
>
> *sigh* Humble pie, anyone?
>
Well, it appears that the MS supporters group has decided to
be represented by someone more knowledgeable. Not being able
to tell apart shell operations from applications operations
is rather common in MS environment, but doesn't sound good
in public.
> >But there's more. The same holds true for applications. It's simply
> >unthinkable that an application wishing to open a documents parses a 2
> >MB file in order to find out what to do. So the brilliant MS brains
> >have come out with the worst possible solution.
>
> If you are stating here, that the OS and applications must
> "search" for anything in the registry, then I submit that it
> is you, sir, who is grossly ignorant.
OK. You can't dispute the main issue. so you slip to a side
one. "Christofer is grossly ignorant, but you're too, you
say". Quite a moot point, but let's see if it's true.
>
> First of all, the very notion of "searching" for anything
> in the registry outside of using the REGEDIT.EXE program
> is simply absurd. There is no searching whatsoever, for
> that would negate the very reason for the registry's being.
>
> So, I'll try to educate you, as you claim to try to
> educate Christopher, but I doubt you will be a worthy
> pupil.
To start with try to educate me explaining me what term
you'd use to indicate the attempt to locate in a database an
entry you don't know.
You only know a file extension and you want to know, whether
it's an executable or a document, and in that case you want
to know the associated application. So you must get from
your database the information about that extension. This
operation is called a "search" in any case. If the database
is smart you have a quick search mechanism. if it's dumb you
haven't. If you know better let me know. I'm always eager to
learn.
>
> The registry is really a kind of filesystem of a sorts.
> DWORDS, KEYS, and binary data are stored here in specific
> places that executables can find them. For example, if
> an application wants to know if the user has turned off
> a certain feature, it will look for the definition of
> such an attribute in the very spot in the registry that
> it was written to look.
>
> In other words, values are stored in places where the
> application is expecting them to be. If there are no
> such values, then most applications are written to
> go ahead and create the necessary hives/keys.
Wait, wait.
What you're trying to suggest?
You want make me to believe that a very fast and efficient
method of search does exist, but REGEDIT.EXE doesn't use it?
That instead of using the mechanism that the OS is using to
access data, the procedures that someone must have written
for that purpose, REGEDIT has built another slow, cumbersome
mechanism to perform a textual search, with the added
problem to skipping fields related to database structure?
And for what purpose? To annoy users? And how does REGEDIT
add entries if it's unaware of the smart mechanism you're
suggesting? No, that's really too much.
Now only two options exist: either it's true, and in that
case you're showing such an example of incompetent design
that I wonder how you're not ashamed of it. Or it's not,
which means that the search mechanism is inherently
cumbersome and slow, and then it's a different case of
incompetent design.
>
> Now, I suggest that you go out and get yourself a
> good book on WindowsNT, and stop pretending to know
> things that you are obviously clueless about.
The starting point was that Windows is exposing an API which
is intrinsically dangerous by security point of view. You
wisely skipped that point because the opposite can't be
supported, and grabbed the registry side issue.
Now two cases hold. Either what you say is true, i.e.
registry can be used efficiently, and in that case such an
API is a blatant example of incompetent design. Or it's not,
and in that case the registry is a blatant example of
incompetent design.
What do you think one may learn reading books on incompetent
design? What to avoid?
I'd suggest you to read some good textbook on computer
science. You may learn a lot. And avoid trying to support
laughable points of view. Showing yourself clueless not on
NT only, but in Computer Science in general.
>
> As for Christopher, I'm sure he's light-years beyond
> you in understanding computing concepts.
If it's so then he failed to show it. Given your posting I
wouldn't rate you among fair and competent judges.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:44:57 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > >But there's more. The same holds true for applications. It's simply
> > >unthinkable that an application wishing to open a documents parses a 2
> > >MB file in order to find out what to do. So the brilliant MS brains
> > >have come out with the worst possible solution.
> >
> > If you are stating here, that the OS and applications must
> > "search" for anything in the registry, then I submit that it
> > is you, sir, who is grossly ignorant.
> >
> > First of all, the very notion of "searching" for anything
> > in the registry outside of using the REGEDIT.EXE program
> > is simply absurd. There is no searching whatsoever, for
> > that would negate the very reason for the registry's being.
>
> You're both wrong. Searches must be done (the key names
> must be converted to memory/disk addresses), but they are
> probably indexed or hashed for speed, as is common in
> databases.
>
I strongly doubt about that. If indexing or hashing is used,
while REGEDIT (for a Key search) doesn't use it, and offers
you the classical textual search (search up, or search
down)? There's no up and down in a hash table!
> However, I have to state categorically that I am only surmising,
> and the NG reader would do well to consult a proper Windoze
> system text.
You know the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?
The optimist doesn't know what's going to happen, the
pessimist neither, but he has some suspicions!
Well, my attitude towards MS is strongly pessimistic, and I
openly show my suspicions.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:48:08 GMT
I've tested RedHat 7.0 on a couple of servers and now
I am back installing 6.2 one instead. I think 7.0 shouldn't
even have come out. Don't like a GNU/Linux company
shipping such kind of shit.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Linux Sux
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:49:27 GMT
> Actually you can. There is a setup switch to override the clock speed
> check.
> setup.exe /nm should do the trick.
Hehe, the "Windows easy of use and installation" affair :-)
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:48:09 GMT
> This statement contradicts 90% of the cola mantra that linux is no harder
to
> use\learn than windows.
> Which is it guys?
It is not, you just have more things to learn, but equally easy. Anyway,
I
have found SuSE to be the very best distribution because it includes
configuration files with everything fully commented to even be able to
avoid reading documentation for a lot of things. For home use, I'd in
fact recommend it blindly.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Windows SUX
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:48:11 GMT
> The registry doesn't "forget" things. It's a binary file. how could it
> "remember" it's old setting? Answer: It can't. Thus something is
setting
> it to default. It could be that your monitor isn't sending the proper
> signals to auto-detect it. You should try turning off the autodetect and
> selecting your monitor manually.
You can talk whatever you want but my Windows 98 periodically (about
once a month or even two if heavy Windows use) reverts my AOC to
default monitor and I have to install again the AOC one. Calling it "forget"
is a matter of taste.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:50:57 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > >
> > > >But there's more. The same holds true for applications. It's simply
> > > >unthinkable that an application wishing to open a documents parses a 2
> > > >MB file in order to find out what to do. So the brilliant MS brains
> > > >have come out with the worst possible solution.
> > >
> > > If you are stating here, that the OS and applications must
> > > "search" for anything in the registry, then I submit that it
> > > is you, sir, who is grossly ignorant.
> > >
> > > First of all, the very notion of "searching" for anything
> > > in the registry outside of using the REGEDIT.EXE program
> > > is simply absurd. There is no searching whatsoever, for
> > > that would negate the very reason for the registry's being.
> >
> > You're both wrong. Searches must be done (the key names
> > must be converted to memory/disk addresses), but they are
> > probably indexed or hashed for speed, as is common in
> > databases.
> >
>
> I strongly doubt about that. If indexing or hashing is used,
> while REGEDIT (for a Key search) doesn't use it, and offers
> you the classical textual search (search up, or search
> down)? There's no up and down in a hash table!
Sorry, I made a typo, and I noticed only after clicking
"send". I meant "why REGEDIT doesn't use it?". "while"
doesn't make sense.
>
> > However, I have to state categorically that I am only surmising,
> > and the NG reader would do well to consult a proper Windoze
> > system text.
>
> You know the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?
> The optimist doesn't know what's going to happen, the
> pessimist neither, but he has some suspicions!
> Well, my attitude towards MS is strongly pessimistic, and I
> openly show my suspicions.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Linux Sux
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:51:06 GMT
> > DOESN'T SUPPORT HARWARE.
>
> It supports everything I have.
What's more, my TV card can only be used without fear
about freezing the OS under Linux. Both Windows 98 and
Windows NT/2000 with the latest drivers (W2K beta, by
the way) kill the system before or after.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:56:34 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Question: if I quote one answer on the NG, is it "dissemination"?
>
> You said "semination", huh huh heh heh. And you are in big trouble
> for publishing the proprietary information of Network Solutions.
>
> Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!
>
Please don't tell anybody. What's you price?
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: RE: Alessandro Rubini's very interesting article on system calls...
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:57:06 GMT
> 'Gee! Now, who shall we believe? A person who knows
> something about the Linux kernel, or a bunch of
> political-activist momma's boys who like to dress
> up like programmers, and call themselves "intellectuals"?
> </sarcasm>
I am not a kernel wizard (even when I do program some
things), but as a system administrador I can say I prefer
GNU/Linux by far to NT/2000 or even Solaris (except for
some things). Anyway, not every kernel guru have the same
opinion that Alessandro have, and what's more, I think that
both you and the article you refer to are getting words out
of the context they were said.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
