Linux-Advocacy Digest #383, Volume #30 Thu, 23 Nov 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[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: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:19:26 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sam Morris wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
>
> Then you are LYING>
>
> Lose98 did NOT come with any help for command.com.
Type this at any Windows 9x prompt: command/?
As opposed to the help command syntax in MS-DOS 5 and 6, Windows 9x uses
MS-DOS 6.22 help syntax.
Further, the help files for the Windows 9x CLI, starting with Windows 95 SR
2, are all in C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND, and are updated versions of the 6.2x CLI
help files.
It is ME that does not come with CLI-based help.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:09:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Another thing you should realize before you
> > label me some kind of Windows nut, is that there
> > is a very easy way to install Linux on a laptop
> > that has no CDROM: pull the hard drive out of the
> > laptop and mount it on an existing desktop with
> > a CDROM drive. You might have to change some of
> > the X Windows settings if the distribution is
> > fairly automatic (i.e., "forces you to accept its
> > choices over your own") but you will still end up
> > with a hard drive that has Linux installed on it,
> > without anything more complicated than plugging
> > it into an IDE cable or adjusting the SCSI ID#.
>
> You must not have ever owned a laptop, or at least
> never looked at a laptop hard drive.
I own a Compaq LTE Elite 4/75C (new in 1995), which
I recently *upgraded* from a 540MB 2.5" drive to a
1.0GB 2.5" drive. I have Slackware Linux 7.1 running
on it, with XFree86 configured for the weird little
video chip inside it (Western Digital 90-something).
For only being a 75Mhz 486DX4, it boots up and runs
fairly quickly, so I'd recommend it to other people
wanting a cheaper laptop.
There are some LTE Elites on EBay right now, going
for about $100-$200. If they say "does not have
power supply", bid on it anyway, the LTE Elite has
an *internal* power supply (with a CUTE little fan!)
and runs off a cable that looks like a conventional
kitchen appliance cable.
The Compaq LTE Elite hard drive case looks like an
Altoids box with an odd little female plug sticking
out of it reminding one of the female 36-pin
Centronics printer jacks in miniature. Inside the
pinout of the 2.5" hard drive connects to a
paper-like connector linked to the outside plug.
The case is thick enough to accomodate pretty much
any 2.5" drive you toss into it, so I'd recommend
this laptop to anyone wanting not to be trapped
into one vendor for hard drives.
Now that we've established my credentials... :)
> Laptop drives don't use the standard 40pin
> IDE cable that desktops use so your idea
> won't work.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression I was talking
to technical people. From a local computer store
for $10US, I purchased a kit which was labeled
"Mount 2.5" laptop hard drive in a 3.5" drive bay".
This included an ADAPTER which allows you to adapt
the standard 2.5" pinout to the standard 40-pin
IDE cable. The power connector for the 2.5" drive
is included in its pinout, and the ADAPTER contains
a plug and wires to send power to the right pins on
the 2.5" pinout.
Thus I was able to install Linux onto the old 540MB
drive and use it in a conventional desktop, but
for fun I tried it out in the old laptop, and it
booted up just fine.
> What I did when my sony laptop didn't have a
> built-in cdrom was use a boot floppy and install
> linux over my LAN using my 2nd desktop as an NFS
> server.
What network card? SLIP? PLIP? Parallel Pocket
Network Adapter? You're leaving out the details
the technical people like myself CRAVE.
> I entered the info the installation program
> was asking for and I was installing Linux
> within a few minutes (after I picked out what
> packages I wanted from the plethora that comes
> with Suse).
>
> > Put it back into your laptop, and Linux will
> > reconfigure your hardware settings when it boots
> > up again (at least, RedHat with Kudzu does this),
> > or you can do it using one of the various "Linux
> > for Dummies"-type books.
> >
> > > > Debatable, for various reasons. One issue is support by a
> > > > reputable vendor. (I would include Cygwin, now owned by
> > > > RedHat, as a reputable support vendor, but I'm not sure
> > > > everyone would, especially since Microsoft has effectively
> > > > brainwashed so many.)
> > >
> > > I have to agree. I was sitting in a coffee shop and
> > > nearly choked on my coffee when I heard someone state
> > > quite authoritatively, "Linux, that runs on Microsoft."
> > > Obviously the person was ignorant about what an
> > > operating system is.
> >
> > Considering the plethora of Linuxes that run using
> > LOADLIN and no repartitioning, its an easy mistake
> > to make.
> >
> > > >>#3. Linux will never be the OS for nitwits.
> > > >One advantage for Linux is that nitwits can't screw it up,
> > > >if they don't have root access. :-) I for one would
> > > >think that this makes it especially suited for children.
> > >
> > > I use it on my notebook to take notes in class and I
> > > am an Arts major, so I like to think that I am living
> > > proof that nitwits can learn something about Linux.
> > > {I use Windows at school, but only because the
> > > Unix systems are not available to Arts students}
> > >
> > > I love Linux and FreeBSD for all the free software.
> > > I cannot find software with the same capability
> > > under Windows for free. (Grip is a prime example)
> >
> > Do you mean "GIMP"?
> >
> > In any case, if you load up the Linux system in GUI
> > mode and hand it to a child, your child will be just
> > fine with it. Use something similar to computers the
> > child may have used in school (such as Enlightenment
> > or FVWM95, or whatever KDE comes with) and the child
> > shouldn't even notice much of a difference from
> > computers s/he is used to using. The "username
> > password" thing may even get a smile out of the child,
> > thinking that s/he has password protected files on
> > your home computer (you can educate them about "root
> > access" later on in life :).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:10:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>
> I can - if you don't expect your OS to be up for more than 1 week at
> a time, or so, then 50 days allows a huge margin.
>
Our mail server:
05/10/2000 15:22:26 Shutdown Prior uptime:104d
1h:31m:32s
Shutdown for a hardware upgrade.
Of course, that's using the right tool for the job.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:21:35 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <gZwR5.371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Ha! Ha! There goes CM again!
> >>
> >> Are we a mainframe Systems Administrator this week Chad?
> >
> >Ah... HP-UX is a mainframe OS now?
>
> Certaintly Chad. Everybody knows the framiliary HP-9000 run's
> HP-UX! This is such common knowledge that it only helps me
> prove further to the crowd you don't know your head from your
> butt on anything.
HP9000's are workstations based on the old Apollo series. It's the 3000's
that could be mistaken for but aren't mainframes. So Chad's question about
whether you consider HP-UX an open microsystem or minisytem OS a mainframe
OS is still moot. If you do you probably consider a 3.5" floppy a hard disk
because of the plastic shell.
>
> >
> >> Isn't it a little too soon to be leaving that Oracle DBA
> >> spot you were in just 3 months ago?
> >
> >You still really haven't addressed any of my questions, instead
> >you're content to attack me personally, thus proving your own
> >ignorance.
> >
> >Please, answer my question: Is DAC an overriding principle in
> >HP-UX, or does it just have file ACLs?
>
> Chad,
>
> I really doubt you even know what these terms mean.
>
> >
> >-Chad
>
> Chad! Let's get one thing straight first.
> An HP-9000 is a mainframe computer produced by Hewlitt Packard
> and the HP-UX is their unix operating system which runs that
> machine.
>
> Now as far as your asking questions about the grown up world,
> if I gave you an answer you'd just argue with me like the
> windows Idiot that you've always been! You couldn't accept
> the truth if it was against YOUR beliefs in WINDOWS.
>
> In your own words, you don't even know what HP-UX is?
>
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:24:08 GMT
Clair:
Chad ommited the also PC term of Torvaldite so you might add two words.
Chad Mulligan
Not to be confused with Chad Myers or any other Chad
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
> >
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:25:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Two Words: It Works.
>
> Only dumbasses delete files they want to keep.
>
>
You on the other hand just keep them in your signature.
>
> >
> > claire
> >
> > On 17 Nov 2000 14:52:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <3a11894b$0$3640$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >Hoot Owl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> #2) Two words: Recycle Bin
> > >
> > >Two words: GUI Gimmick.
> > >
> > >Donal (who has one on his Solaris desktop and thinks its a waste of
space...)
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:27:53 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> But it really is very simple to install wine. If you can't do it, then
you
> have no brain:
>
> rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
This assumes you use a distribution that supports RPM, not all do.
>
> man wine.conf
>
> follow the instructions to adjust wine.conf for your local environment.
>
Taking about a week and several volumes of typing.
> Gary
>
>
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:16:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OK, if it's a standard interrogation, it must be documented as such
> > somewhere yes? And you must be able to point me to a reference that
> > describes this standard?
> >
>
> I only dig on this sort of documentation when I need it.
> Last time was perhaps five years ago. As NT is providing it,
> you may easily find it in the Windows NT server manuals.
You tell me my lack of knowledge of Internet standards is telling, but
then you yourself can't refer me to the standard? Funnily enough, the
NT Server manuals provide no information on it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:31:42 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > What the hell are you talking about? NT most certainly does have record
> > > locking, and always has. Win95 does too.
> > >
> > > From the Win32 API:
> > >
> > > LockFile
> > > The LockFile function locks a region in an open file. Locking a region
> > > prevents other processes from accessing the region.
> >
> > Ever tried to use it? Then do and then let me know your
> > results.
>
> Yes, i've used it extensively. Have you?
>
> > > No, we don't think everyone that criticizes MS is fully incompetant, but
> > > you're proving yourself to be.
> >
> > You don't have only to read the API's descriptions, you must
> > also experience their implementation!
>
> I have used LockFile extensively, but suppose for second you're right that
> LockFile doesn't work well (it does). That doesn't change the fact you
> claimed NT can't do it at all.
Maybe you didn't grasp the context. Or maybe I was too
concise. The context was that of an RPC implementation.
You have a server process, and a number of clients. Well the
server process doesn't start a different process for each
user request. It just spawns a new thread. As LockFile is
process related, and not thread related, it's totally
inexistant, as far as this sort of applications is
concerned. You must resort to a specific device which turns
out to be a File locking mechanism. I thought I was thick,
but DB designers have confirmed to me from different sources
that for multiple user database access the FileLock API is
totally useless.
It's an API designed for classical point-and-click users.
If you've used it for such applications, then you've been
happy, of course. If you'd tried to use it for the sort of
application I was mentioning, then you'd have been utterly
disappointed.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:31:58 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:IfKS5.23564$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Isn't this what's become known as 'DLL Hell', considered to be a major
> > > issue with windows?
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > The newer libs support the old calls even if they have to map them. The
> problem is
> > that 3rd-party installers have historically replaced NEWER DLLs to suit
> their own
> > needs thus breaking apps that depend on the NEW calls.
>
> And the historical reason that 3rd party apps had to overwrite these
> DLLS would be?
>
None. They didn't have to if the lazy programmers either: a> Checked the
dates before copying or B> Wrote their programs to the published Windows API
correctly.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:32:38 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >mark wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> >Frog wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:25:37 GMT , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> >> >> >On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 19:35:43 -0500, Gary Hallock
> >> >>
> >> >> >>I rarely have dependency problems. And its a lot better than DLL
hell.
> >> >> >>rpm will
> >> >> >>tell you whats missing. You can install multiple rpms at once
and all
> >> >> >>dependencies
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sure it will with some arcane description of a file or package that
is
> >> >> >nowhere near to the name of the actual package (that includes the
file
> >> >> >you need), so unless you happen to know what these things actually
> >> >> >are, you will never find them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, MSVCRT.DLL is so much more descriptive and unambiguous.
> >> >
> >> >That's a filename. There is a description as well. All properly
written
> >> >32-bit Windows DLLs have additional information like the File Version,
> >> >Description, Publisher, Language, Original Filename (useful if it gets
renamed
> >> >:-), the Product Name it's part of and that Product's Version. This
info
> >> >alone can be used to easily ID almost any PE executable.
> >> >
> >> >> And of
> >> >> course, products from Microsoft *always* keep the most current DLL,
so you
> >> >> *never* have software that relies on entry points that don't exist
any
> >> >> more.
> >> >
> >> >This has been hashed about so many times that it's really lost any
semblance
> >> >of humor. Properly written application installers do not replace
newer
> >> >versions of shared components with older versions. So far I've not
seen
> >> >anyone produce a relevant Microsoft application that blindly installs
older
> >> >shared components. That's typically the realm of your AOLs and
Netscape's and
> >> >such. That's OK though. They can keep on performing the equivalent
of system
> >> >sabotage and Windows will replace their mess right along behind them.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I might have misunderstood this thread, but I thought the suggestion
was
> >> that the newer DLL no longer supported a given call, thus breaking some
> >> existing package.
> >>
> >> Isn't this what's become known as 'DLL Hell', considered to be a major
> >> issue with windows?
> >>
> >> Mark
> >
> >The newer libs support the old calls even if they have to map them. The
problem is
> >that 3rd-party installers have historically replaced NEWER DLLs to suit
their own
> >needs thus breaking apps that depend on the NEW calls.
> >
> >
> Ah, okay. So you buy some software from a vendor, install it, and
something
> else gets broken.
>
> I really do prefer the debian GNU/Linux way.
>
You mean where nothing works so it cannot be broken....
> Mark
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:31:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As one of those Linux nitwits, I have to disagree.
> > > I own a ThinkPad 701C notebook. The 701C comes
> > > with an external floppy drive and no CD-ROM. This
> > > means that in order to install Windows 95, I must
> > > create dozens of floppy disks, then spend hours
> > > inserting them into the floppy drive, before I get
> > > a working system. Total effort expended, about 6
> > > hours. With Linux and FreeBSD, I simply set up
> > > an NFS server on my desktop, connect my notebook
> > > to my desktop via the parallel port, boot from the
> > > floppy drive, and install Linux or FreeBSD over
> > > the mounted CD-ROM in the desktop system. Granted,
> > > it took some experimentation before I learned to do
> > > this, but the install is MUCH easier than Windows.
> >
> > First, I too am a Linux nitwit, but unfortunately
> > your solution to install Linux on your laptop is
> > already supported by Windows 9x. "Direct Cable
> > Connection" uses the parallel port to directly
> > connect computers together in Windows, thereby
> > allowing the same procedure to work in Windows as
> > it did in Linux.
>
> Not *quite* you need Win95 installed in order to use
> Direct CC, which means that win95 can't be installed
> over it. Besides I've always found direct CC setupts
> (which I have done many of in order to play 2 player
> games) can be a pain sometimes.
Okay, I allowed for the possibility of being "horribly
wrong", lets let it go at that. :)
> > And even if it turns out that I am horribly wrong
> > and Windows has built-in security measures which
> > consider the above procedure a "violation of
> > copyright" or some other weirdness like that,
> > Command Line Interface Windows 9x still possesses
> > the ability to do the INTERLNK/INTERSVR commands,
> > which can copy files between systems using the
> > parallel port (commands which, I need to add here,
> > aren't implemented as simply in Linux as they are
> > in Windows). This means all you need to do to get
> > Windows up and running on your laptop is a Windows
> > 9x startup disk (or even two MSDOS 6.22 boot disks
> > with INTERLNK/INTERSVR on them and CDROM drivers),
> > a parallel port "LapLink" cable, and a desktop
> > system with a free parallel port and a CDROM drive.
>
> I have a DOS bootdisk with LapLink 3, fdisk, format
> etc on just for this purpose. I'ts very useful and a
> lot easier than installing from floppies.
Same here. I don't bother with anything more than
INTERLNK/INTERSVR, largely because of cost, but also
because the included DOS Inter-whatever treats the
linked drives as local drives, permitting XCOPY to
be used with the /V switch. Sure, I bet your system
is faster, but this is what I know well.
> > Sad to say, it is actually *easier* to use a
> > parallel cable to install Windows than it is to
> > use a parallel cable to install Linux.
>
> Depends. If you're used to doing Parallel
> conects under Linux it's very easy, likewise
> for dos. I think it's a familiarity thing.
> Also, under Linux, you can install everything
> in one go over the parallel cable without
> having to copy any files on to the local disk,
> which is an advantage, IMHO.
I don't agree completely with that one. I
would prefer copying all the files over into a
local hard drive first, since then I could let
the copying operation go on while I *slept*,
then have a much faster install than the, what,
200kbps speed on the PLIP connection?
If I had to do the whole thing at once, sure,
do the install over the PLIP. But if I have a
day or two, I'd much rather have all the files
copied over first and do the install from the
much faster--and less error-prone--hard drive.
How would one go about copying all the Linux
files over first, given a created partition
on the laptop drive ready to receive the files?
Can a boot disk be created with network and
PLIP support to make the process function?
> > Another thing you should realize before you
> > label me some kind of Windows nut, is that there
> > is a very easy way to install Linux on a laptop
> > that has no CDROM: pull the hard drive out of the
> > laptop and mount it on an existing desktop with
> > a CDROM drive.
>
> Laptop hard drives rarely fit in to desktop
> machines. They often use a more compact and
> nonstandard connector.
As I explained to another guy on this ng, ADAPTERS
exist for practically everything in the Computer
World, so "it probably won't work" is often slang
for "i haven't bothered to look for a solution".
>From a local computer store for $10US, I purchased
a kit which was labeled "Mount 2.5" laptop hard
drive in a 3.5" drive bay". This included an
ADAPTER which allows you to adapt the standard
2.5" pinout to the standard 40-pin IDE cable. The
power connector for the 2.5" drive is included in
its pinout, and the ADAPTER contains a plug and
wires to send power to the right pins on the 2.5"
pinout.
Thus I was able to install Linux onto the old
540MB drive and use it in a conventional desktop,
but for fun I tried it out in the old laptop, and
it booted up just fine.
[snip!]
> > > I use it on my notebook to take notes in
> > > class and I am an Arts major, so I like to
> > > think that I am living proof that nitwits
> > > can learn something about Linux. {I use
> > > Windows at school, but only because the Unix
> > > systems are not available to Arts students}
> > >
> > > I love Linux and FreeBSD for all the free
> > > software. I cannot find software with the
> > > same capability under Windows for free.
> > > (Grip is a prime example)
> >
> > Do you mean "GIMP"?
>
> He probably means grip. IIRC it's a ripper front end.
Oh, okay. Haven't gotten around to ripping CDs using
Linux software yet.
> > In any case, if you load up the Linux system in GUI
> > mode and hand it to a child, your child will be just
> > fine with it.
>
> This is something I have been trying to bash in to
> the brains of the winvocates recently. The Windows
> GUI is no friendlier, it's just more familiar to
> most people. Any child would have no problem going
> between the two.
When someone in the Windows World says "UNIX", they
think CLI, which is pretty outdated for home use of
UNIX/Linux. Thus when they say that UNIX is harder
to use, they're talking almost exclusively about the
CLI, and not about the XFree86 + Window Manager GUI
that can be used with UNIX/Linux.
>
> > Use something similar to computers the
> > child may have used in school (such as
> > Enlightenment or FVWM95,
> eeeuuuuch! as an ardent FVWM2 fan, I think the FVWM95
> theme is one of the nastiest things ever to have
> happened to it. But hey, it's just an opinion.
I just mentioned it because it does resemble a certain
GUI found in Win9x/2k/NT. I personally use it on my
laptop only because I wanted the clock and other buttons
at the bottom which aren't available in the conventional
FVWM2 (though you are free to tell me how to *add* them
to FVWM2. :). The buttons represent a slight speed
advantage on the older laptop: by not having to open
the menu every time just to get to the xterm, Netscape,
or calculator apps, I open the apps just a little bit
quicker.
Enlightenment runs too slowly. KWM runs slightly slower
than FVWM95 and faster than Enlightenment, but I don't
need half the things that install with KDE.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
