Linux-Advocacy Digest #398, Volume #30 Fri, 24 Nov 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows SUX (Jacques Guy)
Re: Linux for nitwits (mark)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry... (was Re:
The Sixth Sense) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (Glitch)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? (Glitch)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:05:51 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vk07g$4qtqs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vhjjf$gh7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >> >You mean it has nothing in common for those who haven't been using
OSes
> >like
> >> >MacOS and Windows their whole life.
> >> >
> >> >That would be, erm, about 2% of the population, if that.
> >>
> >> Considering the Windows and DOS have only been around over the
> >> last couple of decades, that would require everyone to be under
> >> 20. They're not.
> >
> >Your logic is flawed, computers only became wide spread in the 80s.
> >
> >
> >
>
> No - the problem is with the term 'their whole life'. If we argue
> that people have been using computers their whole life since the
> 1980s then they _must_ be in their 20s. They're not.
You are hanging to semantics, and you know it.
Stop getting literal and get what he was really trying to say.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:20:31 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Todd:
> I *choose* to use Windows 2000. Nobody stuffed it down my throat.
> I would pay money to use Windows 2000.
A man after my heart! Neither have I paid anything for the
Microsoft stuff on my PC -- that's the way! (and I did get
a $180 discount too when I told the dealer I didn't want
Windows, which I spent on a bigger hard disk).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:07:45 +0000
In article <mCxT5.10916$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jose Mirles wrote:
>Nutty Professor 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
>
>-- snip --
>
>As an average user of both Windows and Linux, I think that Linux
>still has a ways to go to catch up with Windows. While I had no
>problems with the installations of Linux (Redhat 6.1/7.0 and Mandrake
>7.1/7.2), I have seen too many people quit after being confused with
>the questions asked during installation.
>
I've never seen a newbie install windows from scratch. It
would be interesting to give, eg., my folks a PC with linux
on it and a windows Cd and see how far they got.
>Heck, at work we give out a small application called Packet PC,
>designedto offer a quick means to call in and connect with or
>mainframe applications. It comes on two diskettes and we have people
>that can properly install that! It's just a small Windows app, type
>"a:\setup" in the RUN option and it does the rest.
Exactly, they can't manage to run a simple DOS program, let alone
something complex like a windows one.
>
>I have seen tons of people in Best Buy and numerous PC shops with
>simple Windows problems. Frankly, I am surprised by some of the
>things I have seen people bring back their PC for. I have come to the
>conclusion that some people just want a simple looking, simple
>running OS to use. They don't care about the problems, securities,
>etc. The average Joe and Jane will not use MS's Windows update or
>install any patches. I can't even count the times I have heard users
>complain of a virus and they are running a AV program with a year old
Err, year old what?
>
>Fact is, I have noticed that most of the Windows users I deal with,
>have no intention on learning anything about their PC or OS. They can
>make Excel sing or an Access database do incredible things, but have
>no idea how to update a driver. They rather pay someone (which is
>something I love about Windows users) to install drivers and update
>their boxes.
What does 'make Excel sing' mean?
>
>Linux newbees tend to be people that aren't afraid of their PC and
>want to use it to the max. They aren't afraid to compile an
>applicatiion or use the command line. Until Linux is completely user
>friendly (like it or not, that means EVERYTHING from the GUI) it will
>never be mainstream.
Never? How do you know that?
>
>Personally, I hope it never gets there. I like it the way it is. I
>like the command line, since it is faster and you can add the
>parameters you want.
Faster than what? This is one of the intersting bits of confusion
which windows people like yourself seem to have, ie., that the
'command line' is something only accessible at a text console.
That is simply not true. It's available at the same time as eg.,
KDE or GNOME. This is the power of Linux - you can have your cake
and eat it.
>
>In close, your previous post with the problems of installing Windows
>with no CD rom, is far beyond the common Windows user. Most of the
>ones I have dealt with would whine and complain. Linux would totally
>confuse them.
I only know one person who's installed windows from scratch.
That person is currently looking into Linux and will be installing
debian within a couple of weeks.
I wouldn't recommend installing Windows to anyone.
I would recommend Linux.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:09:49 +0000
In article <FOxT5.10917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jose Mirles wrote:
>mark wrote:
>
>> No, it didn't work on my Toshiba laptop with Win98SE. Nor on my
>> boss's, nor two of my guys' machines either.
>>
>> The machine is a Tecra something Pentium III.
>
>-- snip ---
>
>I have never had a problem with NICs in Windows or Linux. They just
>seemed to know what was there and did the install. We use Token ring
>and ethernet at work.
Good for you.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:17:47 +0000
In article <LIeT5.344$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <j1ZS5.428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>
>> >This, as always, is documented. Whats more, it is (gasp!) an open
>standard,
>> >something called CIFS (Common Internet File System). You can pull the
>specs
>> >out from microsoft.com. And the behaviour is fully controllable. There are
>> >two ways to do filesharing things on W2K box, other one is CIFS, other one
>> >SMB/NetBIOS. If the other box does not talk CIFS, the W2K peer falls back
>to
>> >NetBIOS. Or does not, depends how you set things up.
>>
>> Which standards body is it standardised by?
>>
>
>"Microsoft is making sure that CIFS technology is open, published, and widely
>available for all computer users. Microsoft has submitted the CIFS 1.0
>protocol specification to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as an
>Internet-Draft document and is working with interested parties for CIFS to be
>published as an Informational RFC. CIFS (SMB) has been an Open Group
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What exactly is that? I'm guessing it's something that you have
to pay Microsoft for to use, ie., not a real open standard at
all, but a published proprietary spec. I could be wrong,
and I'd rather be, but I suspect I'm not.
>(formerly X/Open) standard for PC and UNIX interoperability since 1992
>(X/Open CAE Specification C209). "
I didn't think X/Open was anything other than a manufacturer's
consortium.
Mark
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:26:15 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:06:23
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:06:08
>> GMT;
>> >
>> >What standard are you referring to?
>>
>> RFC 1213, and its descendants, though in this aspect it is still
>> unsuperceded. Pointedly, 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.3.0 provides the value of the
>> sysUpTime timeticks, a 32 bit counter representing hundredths of a
>> second since the initialization of the management subsystem. HTH.
>
>Thanks, that does help. Given your involvement with SNMP it's
>unsurprising you could point this out. However, I do have a question.
>Would Netcraft be performing a standard SNMP query on the web servers?
>My guess would be not, and that SNMP traffic would be blocked at the
>firewall. Unless I'm misreading the RFC, that would preclude this RFC
>from applying?
You are correct, actually. You asked what standard specifies that an
uptime mechanism be "exposed to the network". If you have a network
device, and you're going to expose uptime, this is the correct way to do
it. Netcraft uses some proprietary techniques (which I'm sure aren't
actually secret, since they involve stuff on the wire, but I don't know
what they are, precisely) to get what is purportedly a "web server"
uptime. Microsoft obviously uses sysUpTime for this purpose, because it
is the only such mechanism available, wraps at 49.7 days, and is
integrated, along with the rest of their management subsystem
information base, with the registry. So obviously, this is the standard
they are following.
Netcraft could not possibly be performing an SNMP query, since SNMP is
nominally firewalled between all autonomous authorities.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:26:17 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:23:06
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:30:01
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >You complaint about obscuring the line between executables and data is
>> >misdirected, tell it to Apple & Xeroix.
>> >That is the major part of gui, FWIW.
>>
>> It ain't worth spit, that's what its worth. No, this isn't even a minor
>> part of "gui", though I can understand completely why you would be
>> confused on this subject. It is the procedures which are affected by
>> the use of a GUI, not the operations, or the abstractions.
>
>It's part of the all widely used GUI.
You mean its part of all computers, and computers widely use GUIs. A
"command" is usually nothing more than a filename of a program,
remember?
>Namely, Windows & Apple.
>This had been around since Apple's first GUI, in 1986 IIRC. It might be part
>of Xeroix as well.
By "this", I presume you are referring specifically to "opening a
document" and having the shell launch the appropriate app with the
document loaded, rather than opening the app and then loading the
document, correct? So it sounds like it is part of the shell. You're
right this is closely associated with use of GUI file managers. You're
wrong to think it is anything more but a coincidental association, the
two ideas coming about at the same time. For that matter, you would
probably expect a GUI to be a clear and obvious thing. But was DOSSHELL
a GUI? You're getting into a level where it is necessary to critically
evaluate information, to an extent that I am quite familiar with, as its
what I do, and you are not at all equipped to perform, which I know
because it is something I also do.
Just because the only way you can see file associations being used is in
the GUI file manager doesn't mean the two have anything to do with each
other.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:26:20 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:29:31
[...]
>Actually, it's quite the opposite.
>Netscape announced that it was planning to make its browser the middleware,
>and thus eliminate the need in Windows.
<*chortle*> And how does making a browser into middleware eliminate the
need for an operating system?
>IE was the response for this.
>Mr. Andreesen came up with browser-as-a-middleware all on his own.
I'm quite well aware of that, and pointed it out in my post. And it was
Microsoft's response to this stupid idea which caused it to become one
of the central "developments" of computer software for going on a
decade. Meanwhile, ITS A STUPID IDEA TO BEGIN WITH.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:26:22 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:10:11
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> >File associations are configurable from many places, the registery being my
>> >pick, but I could choose File Types or Assoc.
>>
>> Yes, you could, couldn't you? Too bad you couldn't make any more sense
>> of them than any other person.
[Apparently missing the point, Ayende decided to illustrate it:]
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT contain the file assosications.
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\* contain actions on all file types.
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.<some extention> (that is dot extention, btw, you might
>not notice the dot) contatin:
>"(Default)" field of REG_SZ type, whose value is the name of this extention.
>"Content Type" field of REG_SZ type (optional), whose value contain MIME
>information about this file type.
>For .TXT file types, those are the values on my system:
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.txt\(Default) = "txtfile"
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.txtContent Type = "text/plain"
>The data about how to handle the file is stored in:
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\<the value of the (Default) field of the .extention>
>A sub key called "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\<the value of the (Default) field of the
>.extention>\DefaultIcon" contain a "(Default)" field of REG_SZ whose value
>should be a path to an ico/icl/exe/dll file and the location of the icon
>inside that file.
>A sub key called "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\<the value of the (Default) field of the
>.extention>\Shell" determain the behaviour of right & double click actions
>on the system.
>Subkeys of this key will be alternatives to open the file in the right click
>menu.
>The (Default) field contain the name of one of those sub key (usually Open),
>which will be the default action of this file type.
>If the (Default) field contain no value, the sub key Open is the default
>one.
>Those sub keys has each a (Default) field whose value will determain what
>text will be displayed on the right click menu.
>"&Open" is the most common one.
>The & sign will determain what letter will get underlined and can be used to
>quickly access this option. If there is no value, the subkey's name is used.
>The sub key should have another subkey, called "Command", whose (Default)
>field which will contain the path information to the executable that will
>open this file type.
>For .TXT file types, this would be the key HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\DefaultIcon\(Default) =
>"%SystemRoot%\system32\shell32.dll,-152"
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\shell\(Default) = "Open"
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\shell\open(Default) = "&Open"
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\shell\open\command\(Default) =
>"%SystemRoot%\system32\NOTEPAD.EXE %1"
>HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory & HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Folder define how folders
>(&drives, &special cases such as control panel) and they follow the sames
>rules as filestypes does.
>This is the basics only, of course.
Like I said. I'm glad you know how they work. Now if only you could
make sense out of them.
>There is a lot more to it, but that is enough to handle file types to a
>level sufficent to most users/programmers, and I don't feel like writing an
>essay about the registery right now.
Nor does anyone else, you see, including Microsoft. Are you even
beginning to catch on?
>The relationships are quite clear, once you know about them
>(and you can probably figure it out on your own, if you've to.)
Which I did, about three years ago. I also experimented with three
different programs for manipulating extensions/associations/file types.
They all sucked, and I realized why was the fundamentally bogus
mechanism (organizing method) which MS had implemented, which seemed
more geared towards screwing up users and locking in ISVs than anything
functional, though I'm sure if I wasted time analyzing their
hierarchical structure of information, there would be some base level of
reason to do it that way. Not every engineer at MS is an idiot, just as
not every manager is a criminal.
>Can you explain what you mean about different organization methods?
Yes, but its not worth the time, I'm afraid. There are efficiencies and
corrections which can be made in this
extension/association/filetype/command/application linking which MS
wrought, but its not really my desire to have to redesign their
crapware. The previously used "extension=application" mechanism as used
in Win3.x was quite comfortable, for me, if quite limited. It meets
more than 80% of the requirements, and all this convolution pretty much
does nothing but make lock-in stronger, once people have resigned
themselves to following One Microsoft Way.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[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 registry...
(was Re: The Sixth Sense)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:26:24 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:24:02
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Searches are damn slow because they are obviously "registry walks",
>> retrieving each node and comparing it to the search value. Giuliano's
>> detractors do have a point there; the system doesn't use the registry
>> like that. (The applications don't use the registry at all, strictly
>> speaking, but call the system to do that for them.) In a hierarchical
>> database, you either know precisely where the information is that you
>> want, or you can't get it (without crawling through every node, as the
>> search does).
>
>I don't know about the programs you use, but those I use/write don't
>*search* the registery.
Umm, that's what I said.
>That is about the most inefficent way to do it.
Yes, it would be. BTW, as I also pointed out, the programs you
use/write don't use the registry at all, as a hierarchical datastore.
You just use the API which Windows provides to direct it to use the
registry.
>You call a key by its path, which is pretty damn fast.
>You need to know where you are going to, otherwise, the registery is
>useless.
Apparently, you stopped reading the message you were responding to after
the first paragraph (and didn't read that one too carefully) because
that is precisely what I said. It is also, ironically enough, exactly
what Giuliano is talking about, though he's focusing more on the
"useless" part.
>The registery is there for keeping your program's settings, that is all.
No, its there for keeping whatever is registered in it, that is all.
Hierarchical databases are like that. DNS and the MIB are the same way.
This is why, every time someone points out that the registry doesn't
support comments, some numbnuts (such as yourself) insists "it does if
you use a node as a comment", which is about as senseless a statement as
you could make. Mostly because, as you've already pointed out, you need
to know where you are going to, and this kind of defeats the purpose of
having comments. In fact, it turns any "comment" into data, as it now
becomes something which must be explicitly referenced and interpreted in
order to be useful.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:27:29 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
>
> I have another word to add to this subject: CheapBytes. :-)
>
> Admittedly, it was awhile ago, but CDs from CheapBytes are
> cheaper than the shipping costs, and if one buys them
> in clumps (as opposed to one at a time), the shipping costs
> per CD go down.
>
> To download it off the net costs money, too -- in a sense.
> Assume a 56k modem line (which in my case translates to
> 3.7kB per second -- probably something to do with the
> quality of my phone lines),
either the line or just your ISP, lol. I get 5.2k/sec from most
servers. From some servers, such as ftp servers on cable modems, I've
got upwards of 15k/sec but for daily use from webpages I get 5.2k/sec.
With that speed I can get 20 megs/hour or approx. 480MB/day although
I've never let it go a whole day.
> or 319.68 MB / day,
> or 9.5904 GB / 30 day month. Since I pay $30/month,
> this means my downloading costs are $3.13 a GB,
> and it takes me 3 days straight.
>
> A person with a 128Kb ISDN line would pay about half that,
> if not less, depending on his monthly fixed costs.
> A person with a 384Kb ISDN line would pay even less.
>
> There are also disk storage costs, although if one pays
> $100 for a 30 GB drive, this works out to .33 cents a megabyte,
> or $3.33 a gigabyte. There are issues with MTBF and amortization,
> which I won't go into here, but if one wants to keep the data
> for a year, the cost would be one-half, or $1.67 per gigabyte-year,
> if the drive MTBF is 2 years (note that 20,000 hours = 2.28 years).
Typical MTBF for drives at present is 100,000 hours I believe.
>
> It's still cheaper to go by CheapBytes, but it won't be for long. :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:26:13 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <LIeT5.344$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
> >"Microsoft is making sure that CIFS technology is open, published, and
widely
> >available for all computer users. Microsoft has submitted the CIFS 1.0
> >protocol specification to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as
an
> >Internet-Draft document and is working with interested parties for CIFS
to be
> >published as an Informational RFC. CIFS (SMB) has been an Open Group
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What exactly is that? I'm guessing it's something that you have
> to pay Microsoft for to use, ie., not a real open standard at
> all, but a published proprietary spec. I could be wrong,
> and I'd rather be, but I suspect I'm not.
My Babylon tells me that RFC stands for Request For Comments, a draft of a
propusal to the IETF.
If I understand correctly, this is a step before you get a standard.
And I don't think that the IETF does proprietry standards, so it's an open
one.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:33:57 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
munke wrote:
>
> Jolf wrote:
>
> > I bought a new mother board, PC chips' VIA KT133 board, with duron and
> > 128 M Pc133 RAM.
> > But my linux can't recognize all my memory. It tell me that all I have
> > is only 64M RAM!!!
> > I tried Mandrake 7.0, Redhat 6.0(RH6.2 doesn't work), the same results.
> >
> > Under win98, 128M Ram is recognized.
> >
> > Anybody know the problem?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
> Redhat always seemed deficient in this area.......Mandrake has a dialog
> box in the expert install process.
>
> When prompted to enable hdparm et cetera there is an option "append" here
> you can choose to specify your own memory settings in MB.
>
> You can also enter this line at the lilo prompt
>
> before the kernel boots
> example:
>
> LILO: # at this prompt type
>
> LILO: linux mem=128M
>
> this will have to be done each time you startup
>
> or you can edit the file /etc/lilo.conf
>
> add this line to lilo
>
> append="linux mem=128M" this will ensure that your mem is detected
> everytime...
>
do not put the 'linux' part of that command in your lilo.conf. I'm
guessing the result is if you recompile your kernel and use a different
name than 'linux' that even if you choose to load another kernel it will
load the one named 'linux' b/c that is the one specified in that append
statement but I could be wrong with that line of reasoning. Anyway, you
don't need the 'linux' part of that command,just put: append="mem=128M"
and don't forget to run /sbin/lilo to write the change to the MBR
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:20:06 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:04:10 GMT, Ketil Z Malde wrote:
>>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>>> rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
>>
>>>> This assumes you use a distribution that supports RPM, not all do.
>>
>>And that you've located and downloaded the rpm.
>>
>>> The other major choice is deb. Just get the deb package and
>>> install. It is easy.
>>
>>Easy? Just:
>>
>> apt-get install wine
>
>rpmfind has been around for more than a year now, so this
>debian-is-better-because-of-apt-get doesn't really cut it any more.
I think the point was that it's easy whether you're using
an rpm or deb based distro.
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
