Linux-Advocacy Digest #313, Volume #30 Sun, 19 Nov 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Christopher Smith")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (mark)
Re: It's even worse than I thought. (mark)
Re: Linux Sux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Windows SUX (Charlie Ebert)
Re: It's even worse than I thought. ("Vann")
Re: Linux Sux ("Vann")
Re: Linux in Critical Systems? (Pan)
Re: Windows SUX ("Vann")
Re: Linux Sux ("Frank Van Damme")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:47:16 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8v8v02$hpi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ahhh, I love it! Deffending NT by saying there is something wrong with
> > it. And I would say, that retruning a random uptime is something wrong.
>
> Well, no Linux or Solaris server will *EVER* be #1 in a complete list. In
> fact, In about a year, I'd expect no Solaris or Linux servers to be on the
> top 50 list. Since these servers also have a similar bug which will prevent
> them from ever displaying an uptime of larger than 497 days.
This whole thread is goofy. A human being will take over for
uptimes longer than the machine can measure.
And this "bug" could be fixed easily, if worth the effort.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:51:27 +1000
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Well, this problem result from the MS inability to tell
> > > > > apart "open a document with an application" from "run an
> > > > > application". And this is an MS-ONLY issue. No other OS is
> > > > > so crappy. No other Browser or e-mail client is so crappy.
> > > > > The feature is common on Desktop environment, and it is
> > > > > handy. But it must be (as it is on any other OS's) limited
> > > > > to desktop, it can't be a system wide feature.
> > > >
> > > > Even if the problem as you described it existed, it would have
nothing
> > to do
> > > > with "MS inability to tell apart "open a document with an
application"
> > from
> > > > "run an application"". An "inability" which is neither a) unique to
> > > > Microsoft (KDE, for example, "suffers" from the same "problem") nor
b)
> > > > originated by them.
> > >
> > > I have just explained the difference between KDE and MS.
> >
> > Where ? Certainly not in the paragraph above.
>
> It appears that you're having some problem. Is it on reading or on
> understanding?
Neither.
> > > If you don't see it then the discussion is quite inane.
> >
> > Given your demonstrated lack of knowledge thus far, in this and other
posts,
> > it is indeed inane.
>
> You'd better demonstrate YOUR knowledge before. You appear not to grasp
> something quite elementary.
Which would be what, precisely - that the behaviour of the KDE shell and the
Windows shell are basically identical ?
> > > I have just said that it can be a Desktop feature (as in KDE), because
> > > it's under direct user control.
> >
> > How is it any less under control in Windows ? You still have to open
> > <whatever> in either environment.
> >
> > > It can't be a system wide feature,
> > > because it escapes control.
> >
> > It's no more or less system wide in Windows than in KDE. In both cases,
it
> > is a feature of the shell.
> >
>
> Well, you missed the chance of your life. That of coming out of a
> difficult situation leaving in doubt the unaware readers. But you went a
> step too far, showing your abysmal ignorance. Now, I'm sorry for you,
> it's too late.
Your sympathy is touching, but misguided.
> A NG is hardly a place for a class on Computer Science. Maybe I don't
> qualify too well as a teacher, even if I've not only used quite a number
> of different OS's, but also developed some, for research, military, and
> industrial applications. But as you don't appear to qualify even as a
> pupil, I believe we're even.
I've a CS degree, does that help ?
> Well, I'll try to make it very short.
>
> An OS is a computer program whose purpose is to manage system resources
> and to run applications.
Let's clear something up here. Are you going to use the CS definition of an
OS, or the popular definition of an OS ? Or some other definition of an OS
?
> If applications to run were known since
> startup, nothing else would be required. The OS may run a starting
> program which will access a list of the programs to run, and that's all.
> That's what happens with Config.sys in DOS, or with rc.d in *nix sistemV
> startup. Many special purpose OS's do just that.
Config.sys loads device drivers, not programs. You're thinking of
autoexec.bat.
> But if you need a human user to be able to run programs at will, then
> you need a Human Interface, i.e. a program which handles I/O devices the
> human operator may use, gathers information on what the human operators
> requires, and activates the OS functions to load and run the required
> program(s), providing additional informations (such as the files the
> program is supposed to act upon) to the program to be run.
Yes, a shell.
> Such a HI program has been called in a number of ways, from Job
> Processor to CLI. In the Unix world this program has been called a
> "shell" because it encloses the OS like a shell. You don't see the OS
> inside but just the shell. MS has used the same name as a general word.
Almost everyone I've ever met refers to the program that the person uses to
interact with the OS as the shell. If you're in an environment which deals
primarily with embedded OSes I can understand why few people might use the
word "shell" generically, but AFAIK it is a generic term.
> So the standard shell program for DOS is command.com. As with Unix,
> which has many different shell programs (sh, csh, tcsh etc.) you could
> provide DOS with a different human interface program, with the "shell"
> option.
Is there a reason why you continue to talk about DOS ?
> However once the shell has started the program, the program is
> completely unaware of the shell, which has just been the link between
> user actions and OS loading and running the program. If the system is
> multitasking, the shell may continue to run in order to accept other
> commands, else the shell program may just terminate, to be reloaded on
> application terminating.
The depends on a lot of things - like how far you want to take the
definition of the shell. Out in the real world it's all rather shades of
grey, not the black and white you seem to believe.
The libraries that draw things like common dialogs - are they part of the
shell or the OS ?
> If the program needs to communicate with the human operator (i.e. it's
> an interactive program) it will use the OS provided facilities.
> If the program needs to run another program, it will perform a request
> to the OS, as the shell program would do. There's no real difference
> between the shell program and any other program, except a possible
> difference in permission levels.
>
> This is to make clear what a shell is, as opposed to an OS.
I'm quite clear on what a shell is, as opposed to an OS. You appear to be
having some issues, however.
> Now, if the human interface is graphic, made by a pointing device and a
> graphic screen, all of that holds true all the same. You have an
> additional OS layer (a window manager) which takes care to notify
> applications when the pointing device performs an action which may be of
> interest to the application, and that's all. If the window we're acting
> upon is not controlled by another application, the shell is notified,
> and may take care.
The layer(s) responsible for drawing the pretty pictures on the screen and
turning mouse clicks into useful information is totally irrelevant to this
discussion.
> Now let's come to our case. In order to provide the handy feature that
> clicking an icon the appropriate action is taken, the graphic shell
> program must determine whether the icon is a document, or an
> application. If it's an application it will load and run it. If it's
> not, it must have a mean (let's say a sort of lookout table) to find out
> which application must be used to open the document. If an application
> is found, it will perform the appropriate OS call to run the
> application, passing as a parameter the path of the document to open.
I suggest you exchange the word "document" with "data file" and
"application" with "executable".
Apart from that, your explanation does a passable job of explaining the
mechanics behind the scenes, but has little to do with the issue at hand.
You have yet to describe anything that behaves different in either KDE or
Windows.
> If an application (such as IE) wants to perform a similar action, i.e.
> open a document, it must perform the same action. It must duplicate the
> shell action.
IE *is* the shell in Windows. Or, rather, Explorer is the shell and makes
very heavy use of the IE components.
There's no fundamental reason you couldn't replace Explorer with something
else, though.
> And here we are at the point. The operator clicking an Icon on a folder
> gives a shell command, just as typing EDIT after a DOS prompt, therefore
> the way it's handled is a shell feature.
> The operator clicking an icon, a link, or whatever in an application
> window HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHELL, even if the user
> action is apparently the same. Just as typing the same characters EDIT,
> inside the EDIT program. The EDIT program, in response to that may even
> decide to load another instance of EDIT, so that apparently the result
> is the same, but that's an application implementation, totally
> independent from the shell.
Why is this independant from the shell ? Have you considered the fact that
the applications might be using services provided by the shell ?
> Not having this notion impairs any capability of understanding how a
> computer works and how OS, window manager, shell and applications
> interact.
What makes you think anyone but a tiny minority of the population _care_
about how the internals of an OS works ? What makes you think they should
need to ?
> However it happens that the crappy MS implementation mixes up things.
Do explain (you haven't above).
> 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
Actually four system registry files plus logged-in user's HKEY_CURRENT_USER
file, but I realise silly little semantic details like that are of no
concern to you.
> the possibility of performing a search each time it's required. It would
> make the system unbearably slow.
Why would you use a "search" (by which I assume you mean trolling through
every node looking for some piece of information) on a database ? Every
heard of queries ?
> So the association informations are
> loaded at boot and maintained by the OS itself. A bad initial choice
> leads to a bad solution.
The association information is kept in a registry key. Think of it like the
"magic" file. Why is this a bad design choice ? Why does the self-same bad
design choice not apply to Unix (file(1) and magic(5) ) ?
> 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.
Indeed it is unthinkable, which is why you just query the registry to get
the information on a file type. That's why the information is placed in the
registry in the first place.
> Instead of providing an API which returns the application association
> for a given document type, they've provided an API (which is an OS
> feature, NOT A SHELL FEATURE), which will do everything is needed.
Why must the API be an OS feature and not a shell feature ?
Just what is "the OS" in this context ? It is very important that you
define what you mean by "the OS".
> It
> may be used both by the shell and the applications. You just call the
> ShellExec API , which, provided with a file name, will either run it or
> run the application which deals with it.
It will open the file. The file associations determines how that file is
opened. File associations are defined and managed by the shell, although it
uses OS features to perform this management (as it must).
> ShellExec is a service FOR THE SHELL, not a shell service, which would
> be nonsensical, given that the application doesn't see the shell.
Why must the application not "see" the shell ?
> That way, MS has moved something which should only be a shell feature to
> the OS, so that any application may open any document, but any
> application may also run any other application be it dangerous or not,
Are you trying to imply that other OSes do not have this feature ? The
other OSes do not have an API that allows some program to launch some other
program ?
> and being totally unaware unless each application builds and maintains
> its "don't call ShellExec" table, which is cumbersome, error prone and
> unsafe.
One of my points.
> The shell feature is just related to clicking an Icon on a folder, and
> is common to MS and *nix.
I have no idea how to parse the beginning of that sentence.
> The application feature is unique to MS, and related to MS inability to
> make an acceptable OS.
Are you saying Unix cannot launch an application from within an application
?
> After this lengthy explanation, I assume that you've understood that
> running an application from IE is not a shell feature. It's an OS
> feature. That's why is totally different on MS crapware from other sane
> OS's.
Running an application is always an "OS feature". After all, an OS would be
rather useless if it couldn't run applications, no ?
The ability to "open" any filetype and have the action determined by that
filetype, however, is something defined an mananaged by the shell, although
it obviously must use OS feature to provide this service. KDE no doubt
provides such a feature, as would MacOS.
>
> > > Security is a serious matter. It can't be faced amateur-style, like
MS.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > In an enterprise environment, the workstations would/should be
> > locked
> > > > > > down in such a way that viruses become irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > When the browser can't tell apart url addresses from
> > > > > executables on your box, it's not a trivial task.
> > > >
> > > > Except IE can.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not by default, AFAIK.
> >
> > Then your knowledge is lacking.
> >
>
> Given YOUR knowledge I'd shut up if I were you.
Your knowledge is lacking.
> > > > > The only way is to rule out MS crapware. No other way out.
> > > >
> > > > Or just use IE, because it works fine.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not by default AFAIK.
> > >
> > > > > > Email viruses are easily defeated with rules and virus scanning
> > > > software.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What will be your rule when a link appears just to be
> > > > > "report.doc" coming from a trusted site? (and it was
> > > > > intended to be, but the guy pasted the wrong thing, maybe
> > > > > the last command he typed on ->Start->Run?)
> > > >
> > > > Won't make any difference. The browser will still prompt before
opening
> > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not by default AFAIK.
> >
> > I suggest you detail the *specific* version of Windows and IE for which
this
> > works. Certainly, I've never experienced a situation in a default
> > configuration where clicking on a link to a file will open that file
without
> > prompting.
>
> I'd suggest that YOU specify which version of Windows and IE you've
> tested for that.
Windows 95b w/IE3.
> (hint: just try with a PC magazine CD, where clicking a link will
> trigger a setup.exe)
I don't have any. If you want to provide a URL to some web page that you
believe will launch an application without question, go ahead.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
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: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:35:04 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:00:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>
>>I take it this is because NT is better?
>>
>>Or merely more profitable?
>
>Personally I had high hopes for Beos in the audio field but....
I still do.
>
>It's all about profit and that is a key reason why Linux drivers are
>an afterthought of the hardware manufacturers.
A pretty broad statement. Hardware manufacturers make their money from
selling hardware. As linux continues to grow market share, they are
seeing more and more of their profits come from sales to linux users
and linux pre-installs. Drivers are an afterthought for all manufacturers
for all OSs, profit is the forethought, hardware the means.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:39:26 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:23:48 -0500, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>It reminds me of my trips to the zoo as a young man, staring in amazement at
>>the great apes.
>>I think the apes had more sense.
>
>Exactly the same reason I keep coming back here. This place is one of
>the most hysterical groups on the net. It is just like having my own
>personal zoo in my studio.
>
>I observe my little pet's and throw them some food once in a while and
>then I watch them scurry about all fighting over the same piece of
>meat.
>
>It's really quite entertaining observing people who are in love with
>an operating system (see the "I'm in Love thread for details").
I'm amazed at the number of microsoft lovers that spend so much time
in a linux arena - kind of like hyenas in the lions' den. Looking for
the scraps, I guess.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:56:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:58:05 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:32:02 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>
>
>>I have to say that the idea of Linux not working with Madams
>>fascinating. Can we assume that the accounts of your
>>average bordello are handled by Microsoft systems only?
>>
>>Mark
>
>Assuming they run Quick Books I would say so.
>
>Linux need not apply, yet again.
>
>Penguinista's are probably bad for business in a Bordello anyway. I
>mean, I've heard that they rarely bathe?
[1] I'm sure that the women can take care of that -- for a fee.
(Besides, what man wouldn't want to be bathed by a beautiful,
semi-naked woman standing over him with perky ... erm, move
along, folks, there's nothing more to see here.... :-) )
[2] That makes about as much sense as buying Win2k because it comes
in such a pretty transparent box.
[3] Same as [2], except replace "it...box" with "Winvocates on
comp.os.linux.advocacy lie^H^H^Hspeak so highly of its praises
and are so un^H^Hreliable." :-)
[4] Ad hominem.
[5] Wouldn't the women rather have Slow Hands? :-)
>
>claire
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random ... *ahem* ... stuff here
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:59:54 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : >Fuck'n blow me you cheap cock sucking whore. Why don't you go fuck
> : >around in Pimp Billy's news groups with all the other skanky
> : >whores, and let the Linux folk go about their business.
> : >
> : Another fine example of a Penguinista in his native environment.
>
> Not quite bitch. I adminsister a heterogeneous network, using the best
> tools for the jobs, and Windows is one of them. You really ought to get
> youself some netiqutte and learn how to post properly, ya' skanky
> fucking cunt.
Nah, Is that being polite? Is that fine nettiquette? Try to work on the
image of the Linux user as a fine fellow, eager to help people? Jesus. At
least argue instead of swearing. Idiot.
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: 19 Nov 2000 22:59:18 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Go to www.netmax.com
: They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
: configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
: products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
: offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
: Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
: about it.
You should read the GPL before you publicly spout stuff about it.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:59:27 GMT
In article <8v8ick$ll0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>
>"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8v46c3$3idee$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> DOESN'T SUPPORT HARDWARE FULLY ( I can run at 110hz refresh rate under
>> linux but on this windoze shite it only goes up to 75hz)
>
>First of all, Windows 2000 has far more support for peripherals than Linux
>does. Just look in any old computer magazine that isn't dedicated to either
>OS.
>
UNTRUE! Many drivers which worked for products under NT or 98 are
being re-written to work with Windows 2000 properly. USB support
works with some products but not all. There have been a number
of conflicts reported by people attempting to use a USB device
in conjunction with a factory installed DVD player for instance.
It's the same old problems.
And this doesn't cover having to upgrade all your apps to get
the new features of W2k. So even more money is going out the
door for the Windows users than ever before.
>Lots of Windows 2000 compatible products, very few Linux compatible
>products.
>
Everything I own is currently running under Linux.
>Also, the quality of 2000 drivers is far higher, especially if they have
>been certified by MS.
>
Nope. W2k still has much problems in the drivers department.
Too many cross driver conflicts with the system registry.
They will be a year or more ironing this out.
But then we saw this same problem when 98 came out.
>Regarding refresh rates, anything above 75hz seems pretty ridiculous. Also,
>running at high refresh rates can actually slow down 2D and 3D operations.
>Think about it, your RAMDAC is requesting more bandwidth from the video
>memory the faster the refresh rate. This refresh rate must be maintained by
>the video card at all times. It sucks bandwidth that might otherwise be
>needed by the 3D engine or the 2D hardware blitter.
>
Here the author has actually contradicted himself.
W2k quality, better drivers, then he admits it doesn't have any
capability for new monitors. No high resolution support offered
by Microsoft for any monitor.
>Tom's Hardware (www.tomshardware.com) had an article which explained this --
>found it very interesting.
>
>> DOESN'T SUPPORT MODERN PROCESSORS ( linux supports ARM, PowerPC, R3000,
>New
>> Unreleased Intel 64 bit processor - and will soon support amd IA32-64 chip
>> yet windoze can only run on old fashioned intel chips).
>
>Just because a processor exists, doesn't mean that an OS should be ported to
>it.
I agree. We should leave W2k and Microsoft on X86 platforms
so they can just die. This is what you just said.
>
>Windows 2000 runs on AMD chips, Pentiums 3's, 4's.
>
Windows 2000 does not support all AMD chips either.
>There are plans for the Itanium (although I think this chip is already
>dead), and MS definitely has plans for AMD's upcoming SledgeHammer
>processor.
>
And here the author contradicts himself a 2nd time.
Even he admits they don't fully support AMD processors.
Thank you asshole.
>Besides, most apps. have to be recompiled to take advantage of the new
>system... something that apps. developers won't do all of the time.
>Likewise, source code for many applications isn't released.
>
>> CRASHES AT LEAST 3 TIMES PER DAY
>
>Windows 2000 does not crash if the hardware is supported.
>
Yes it does. It will crash under load situation like
you would find at any office.
>> DOESN'T RUN GAMES (without regular crashing)
>
>Wrong.
>
>Windows 2000 has DirectX 7 (now upgradeable to DX 8)... this lets it play
>almost all Windows games out there without crashing. (Unless you can name a
>game that does crash Windows 2000).
>
Direct X is a total failure. Microsoft has plans on throwing
it out with the next major release. This is their words.
{more dribble and lies deleted}
>
>Just ain't worth my time.
>
>-Todd
>
Todd,
You simply aren't worth the air it takes to keep you
alive.
>>
>>
>>
>> WINDOWS SUX
>>
>> NIGEL
>>
>>
Thanks for the FREE LINUX ADVERTISING ASSHOLE!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:02:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 03:21:56 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>It will. If it weren't for the issue of staying compatible with data
>>stored in proprietary formats by programs that established their
>>ubiquity through illegal practices, it already would be.
>
> Yawnnn.. Very old... It's known as competition and it leads to progress.
> That is why Windows programs are so much better than Linux ones, if you
> can even find a Linux program.
>
> claire
>
Funny, I just bought three Linux games at Software Etc. yesterday. They
also had several commercial programs made for Linux.
Considering less than 15,000 people live where that Software Etc. is, your
computer store must be piss poor if they have no Linux programs.
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:04:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:39:24 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Can I install Windows 98 SE on a 486 50MHz? Oops! No. It needs to be
>>66MHz at least! Can I install Linux on it? Yes I can...
>
> Actually you can. There is a setup switch to override the clock speed
> check.
>
> setup.exe /nm should do the trick.
>
> claire
Installing Win98 SE on a 486 50Mhz would be suicide. I mean, what's the
point? Windows 95, maybe, but nothing higher.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Critical Systems?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:10:17 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't know how mission critical any of these are, but finding these took
all of 3 minutes on google.
"S. W. Davison" wrote:
>
> Can anyone point me to published accounts of use of Linux in "critical
> systems?" I'm particularly interested in examples of use in:
>
> o US DOD weapons or combat support systems
http://www.wideopen.com/story/1096.html
> o US NASA ground control systems
http://beowulf.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no3/news/1295-1.html
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:07:59 GMT
<snip>
>> The only point you make with any validity is that it doesn't support
>> processors other than Intel x86-line ones - unless you mean NT, which
>> supports several others.
>
> Er, RISC supported has been dropped, Alpha support has been dropped...
> so which processors are we talking about here?
>
Sparc..no, wait...uh. Motorola chips! Nope, you got me again? Maybe
Zilog! Yeah, no, wait. Ohh...curse you, you and your little facts, too!
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:12:09 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have to say that the idea of Linux not working with Madams
> fascinating. Can we assume that the accounts of your average bordello
> are handled by Microsoft systems only?
>
> Mark
...or Linux being a women unfriendly environment? Tsk tsk.
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
