Linux-Advocacy Digest #693, Volume #30 Wed, 6 Dec 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! (Jim Broughton)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows review (Jim Broughton)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful (Pete)
Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (tom)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: 06 Dec 2000 15:24:49 -0700
OK, I'll bite.
Swango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one. I
> tried Redhat and took the server install option and it promptly wiped
> out my entire hard disk. Fortunately I had a backup but what if I
> didn't?
Wow, if you ignore the warning about how selecting the server option
will reformat your hard drive, who's at fault?
> Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
> time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
> USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
> seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
> kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
> memory.
You wanted to run linux as a server and you're complaining because
your scanner/printer/camera won't work? Are you for real? I know the
answer already.
> Windows 2000 is so much better and from what I have seen Whistler is
> going to be even better than Windows 2000.
I'd like to try W2K. Unfortunately, I don't have $200 to shell out
for a new OS. I could buy another 128M of memory _and_ another 30+GB
hard drive for that. That's absurd.
> To it's credit, at least Linux didn't ruin any of my hardware, quite
> possibly because it doesn't support any of my hardware.
Right. Why don't you list your hardware so we can help. Not that you
want help, but I thought I'd offer.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 22:49:54 GMT
<snip>
>
> I'm not coplaining about the lack of this information in the manual. In
> fact, I qouted from the manual some time ago, exactly about this part.
> I'm complaining that the *installation* doesn't warn you before it erase all
> the contents of your HDs.
> It has nothing to do with this appearing in the manual or not.
> It has everything to do with taking the five second coding to ask the user
> whatever they are aware this will erase all the contents of their HDs.
What you actually saying is that user is an absolution moron/vegetable
and has to be told what could happen every step of the way. Tough
bloody luck if you donot have the foresight to read the manual. If I
were to get picky, why doesn't 9x/NT ever warn when the MBR is
overwritten by the Windows default MBR? BeOS asks, Linux asks, why not
Windows?
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:53:12 +1300
The big question is why does Windows have a registry? Look as BeOS for
example, no extensions or registry, everything recognised via mimetyping.
kiwiunixman
<snip>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 22:56:49 GMT
Ayende, by Microsoft definition, Windows ME (Moron Edition) is meant to
be adequate for the home user, WTF!, it's shit, fuck it's worse than
Windows 3.11! Microsoft, send your think-tank crew into the real world
and find out what real people want in their dream OS, and what they want
to do with their computer.
kiwiunixman
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "scatterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:gRaX5.19203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Linux may have flaws but Jesus have you used Millennium yet? My machine
>> needs to be restarted at least 4 times a day. I just installed Linux a
>
> few
>
>> days ago and have yet to see "An error has occurred in module blah, blah,
>> blah", then the Kernel begins to crash "over and over" time to reboot
>> "again".
>
>
> There is a reason why ME sales are so slow, it *sucks*.
> It incorporate all the weakness of the Win9x line, plus a lot new weaknesses
> that have been added just for fun.
>
> If you want a stable windows OS, drop the win9x line.
> 2000 Pro make a good desktop.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:10:52 +1300
1. Grow some balls and use your proper email address.
2. Windows cannot, and will not work for weeks with out a reboot, maybe
two to three days I could believe, be anything longer than that, I can't
see happening.
3. Windows 2000 Pro, if I were to use it instead of Win9x (I have used
Win2000), look at the freemem after loading Win200 (65MB used), WTF 65
just to load Windows (unmodified)! compared to 38MB for a clean,
unmodified boot of SuSE Linux Pro 7.0
4. Windows 9x sucks as multi-tasking, try using the net, wordprocess
and listen to an MP3, slow response, and wtf! is the memory gone to? try
that type of simple multi-tasking experiment on Linux or any commerical
UNIX, it is like silk, smooth and responsive.
5. Inefficient TCP/IP stack. Microsoft has written, then re-written,
then again have written it, and it is still shit, wtf! don't they adopt
the BSD TCP/IP stack? it is established and very reliable and stable,
but of course, the typical excuse by Microsoft, "if it is not written by
Microsoft, it is obviously inferior" mentality Microsoft runs their
business by.
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 02:56:12 GMT, "scatterman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Even the best W9X version (the original with all the updates) could hardly
>> run longer then a few days.
>
>
> Bull shit.
>
> I'm here to learn linux, but I've spent far more time running MS
> software. I rarely reboot except when I install software, which means
> my system tends to run weeks and sometimes months at a time,
> running win98.
>
> My experience is that it isn't a problem. You linux assholes who
> post pure lies like "Windows won't run more than a few days
> at a time" are full of shit. You are sitting there with your head
> stuck under the ground, trying to tell people what the world is
> like. Those of us who aren't hiding can look and see that the
> world is nothing like you claim.
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:11:32 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : The last thread I started concerning the current OS
> : your using is very interesting reading and it's
> : still getting attention.
>
> : I thought it would be interesting reading and
> : refreshing to see your PC history's revealed here.
>
> : So from the time you first got any kind of PC forward,
> : SOUND OFF.
>
> : From mainframe land we found the
>
> : VIC 20. A commordore based machine with 256K of ram I think.
>
> : Then it was a VIC 64.
>
> The Vic 20 had less ram than the c64, and the c64 had 64 K, so
> no way did the vic20 have 64 K. I don't rememnber exactly how
> much it had. It's hard to compare the two, though, since the
> Vic20 had its basic interpeter in ROM and this was not counted
> in the RAM total, while the c64 had pretty much the same basic
> ROM interpeter, but the ROM was only used to present a permanent
> image to copy into RAM at boot time. Once booted, the basic
> interpeter ran entirely out of this RAM, and the ROM was never
> used. So this basic interpeter took up a part of that 64K RAM
> figure. (This feature allowed machine language programmers who
> didn't need the basic interpeter to overwrite its memory with
> their own code, which gave them more room to work with.)
The VIC20 had 64k of address space. That is NOT to say it had
64k of ram it did not and never could. The C64 on the other hand
DID have 64k of ram and you COULD use all of it albiet not for
basic programs, you had to be an ML guru in order to do this.
Some of the things programmers did with that 64k of ram still
astound me.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:17:02 GMT
Worlord, from what I remember claire lynn said that you dont need to
stuff around tweaking and coding to get Windows working. Linux works
reliably out of the box. My unmodified Linux box has been up for 1 1/2
months w/o a reboot. I know that statement sounds like a giant pissing
competition, but until Windows can achieve realiability with the need of
tweaking, I will never be impressed by Windows in it's current form.
kiwiunixman
WorLord wrote:
> Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of "scatterman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
>> Even the best W9X version (the original with all the updates) could hardly
>> run longer then a few days.
>
>
> Someone else will probably (or has probably) said this already, but
> that's pure unadulterated bullshit.
>
> The machine I'm typing on (WinME) has been up since the 3rd of
> November.
>
> Now, I'll grant you that it takes a lot of work and tweaking to get
> Wind9x *that* stable; but it can be done.
>
> --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: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:18:35 GMT
"moonie;)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000, Colin R. Day wrote:
> >JM wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >of the time.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >True; RAM is dirt-cheap today (I personally recommend 128 MB as a "floor")
> >>
> >> Cheap? What planet are you living on? It's extremely expensive!
> >>
> >
> >The cards I've seen at Office Depot are a little over a dollar a megabyte.
> >
> >Colin Day
>
> I have found it MUCH cheaper around $60 (US) for 128MB.
> --
> moonie ;)
>
> Registered Linux User #175104
> (Registered at: http://counter.li.org)
>
> KDE2
> Kernel 2.4.0-test5
> XFree86 4.0 Nvidia .94 drivers
> RAID 0 Striped
> Test-Pilots-R-Us ;)
> ICQ #83003404
> AIM mooniesdl3
> MSN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just bought 256mb (2 128mb sticks) for us$150. (micron)
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:28:17 GMT
As a half way solution for your sound card, you could hop over to
www.opensound.com and try a copy of open sound out, it works for almost
every card I have had. For the CD-Burner, hmmm, thats a tricky one, but
for the DVD ROM you can read DVD's however :) you cannot watch DVD :(
movies, two areas Linux needs help in, apparently there is a DVD player
being written for Linux, however, I am not too sure about whether
adaptec or some other CD-Writer software company will develop cd-writer
tools for Linux.
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I too am a linux-newbie and I had no problems whatsoever installing
> Mandrake 7.2 on my system. The installation was incredibly easy. I
> really enjoy using it, my only problem is its lack of support for
> certain things such as:
> my soundcard, cd-burner, and my dvd rom.
> But these are just minor flaws that will eventully work themselves out.
> Linux is a far superior operating system to Windows, and best of all I
> haven't experienced any lock ups unlike windows where it is at least
> once a day.
> So instead of posting LINUX IS AWFUL maybe you should post COULD SOMEONE
> PLEASE HELP ME there are really great people here with a lot of linux
> experience who will help you with any of your problems.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Skully1900) wrote:
>
>> Comparing Linux to Windows 2000 is like comparing the Space Shuttle to
>
> a bottle
>
>> rocket and Linux isn't the Space Shuttle. I just installed Mandrake
>
> 7.2 and I,
>
>> and the 3 other people using it are not impressed at all. This is our
>
> first
>
>> venture into the world of Linux, and will be our last at least until
>
> Linux can
>
>> match Windows 2000 in some very basic area's. First off we used
>
> Mandrake 7.2
>
>> complete from Mcmillan and you should be warned about the false
>
> advertising on
>
>> the box. First of all this is NOT a complete version of Linux if only
>
> for no
>
>> server version install offered. Also the tech support is for TWO
>
> INCIDENTS via
>
>> Email and for installation only. They don't tell you about the two
>
> incident
>
>> part on the box. We sent several questions, none of which were
>
> answered. The
>
>> install program is broken badly. If you type the command for expert
>
> setup at
>
>> the boot prompt which is supposed to turn off hardware checking etc,
>
> it doesn't
>
>> work. It still goes off on autopilot and tries to detect hardware
>
> anyway. This
>
>> was a major problem on a laptop we were trying to install on because
>
> it kept
>
>> detecting the wrong video chip and all we got on bootup was a white
>
> screen with
>
>> no way of killing it except power off. No killing the X-server and no
>
> way into
>
>> an alternet console. There was also no way around this because even on
>
> boot up
>
>> selecting i for interactive was interactive only up to starting X and
>
> it did
>
>> that no matter what we selected.
>>
>> On the other 2 systems things installed better but KDE 2.0 is very
>
> unstable. It
>
>> too locks up frequently, especially when exiting it but we can kill it
>
> and it
>
>> doesn't take things down. So now it was time to play with the systems.
>
> We were
>
>> able to set up the network ok and get Internet Connection Sharing up and
>> running even easier than with Windows 2000 but why no dial on demand
>
> that will
>
>> work with kppp and the Gnome dialer? I know it can be done with
>
> scripts but a
>
>> newbie is going to use kppp which is set up as part of the install.
>
> Security
>
>> seemed preety good taking a trip over to Gibsons site. Most things
>
> seemed to
>
>> work, but there is a major problem and that is what is going to send
>
> people
>
>> back to Windows.
>>
>> Linux gui just looks terrible. No matter what screen fonts, resolution or
>> refresh rate is picked it is simply hard on the eyes. Many of the
>
> Gnome themes
>
>> are dark and hard to see. Netscape is the worst in this reagard being
>
> painful
>
>> to look at even with imported Windows TT fonts using DrakConf. By contrast
>> Microsoft Windows is smooth and crisp looking. Mind you were using an
>
> Nvidia
>
>> and a Matrox card, both of which look stunning on Windows. People are
>
> going to
>
>> take one look at this mess and they will return it because it looks so
>
> boxy and
>
>> awful.
>>
>> We have played with fonts, colors and themes and quite frankly have
>
> had it.
>
>> Between the crashing of the GUI, crappy look and yes the lack of quality
>> (although there is no lack of quantity) applications, Linux is a non issue
>> around here. It's off our systems and we have fired off a letter to
>
> Mcmillin
>
>> requesting a refund for deceptive packaging.
>>
>> Rozzi
>>
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:21:30 GMT
In article <90mdqf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dennis Popov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> another claire wannabe, huh? all right people, whoever tries to argue with
> this troll will immediately be labeled as a total moron.
Urrrmm, what makes you think it ISN'T Claire Lynn?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 06 Dec 2000 23:34:50 +0000
"KK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This is the longest running debate I have EVER seen on a linux newsgroup.
> it is also the most pointless debate as everyone is entitled to their own
> opinion, however it is rather stupid of windows users to snag off linux in
> a linux newsgroup. dont you have other things to do you people?
Agreed, unfortuantly , this is being cross posted to some windows
groups, so to them they are posting to a windows newsgroup, not a
linux one. .... so whoever started the thread was doing this
deliberatly to try and start an argument, or just generally being troll..
Once again follow ups set to alt.os.linux.mandrake in a attempt to
finish this thread..
Pete
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:28:12 GMT
The worst thing I have against Linux is that after working in it for
awhile and definitely after trying to read anything, I come away almost
cross-eyed because the fonts are just a little off, even after
importing the windoze fonts and trying them. It's rather ironic that
I'm trying to read the special pdf edition of Running Linux that comes
with Mandrake, but I have to read it under Windows because of the font
thing. It'd be nice if I could read it under Linux and try some of the
things it covers as I come across them.
Netscape is also horrible, but I don't know if it's Netscape or the
font thing again. I've added the lines to the startup file that gets
Netscape to use a little large fonts; I still can't adjust the size.
Does this sound like a hardware issue? (Mandrake 7.1, P266, Leadtek
Winfast 2300 video card w/8M ram) My card was listed in the setup
lists, so I assume it's using the correct driver.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:43:05 +1300
<snip>
if civilisation worked the way you do then we would still be in the
stone age. You're probably the same type of person who can't even setup
their VCR correctly for christ's sake! and need a "technician" to
install a TV antenna!
Read some books, you may acutally find that you brain may start to
functioning once your away from the idiot box (TV).
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:44:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90jrr8$1ft1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Win98? Weeks at a time?
>> I'm impressed.
>> Do call Guniess, you are a first.
> No, he's not. I've run Win98 for weeks at a time as well. My longest
> uptime on 98SE was almost 2 months. I ended up having to reboot because the
> modem locked up and wouldn't dial (not a problem with Win9x, the modem was a
> crappy old Cardinal modem that had that problem, even under FreeBSD.)
> There's no black magic involved with keeping 98 up and running. It just
> involves doing routine maintenance. Defragging the drive, Optimizing the
> registry (using RegClean or Norton's optimization wizard), and keeping the
> DLL problems under control with SFC (system file checker). Also, using
> hardware with known good drivers.
> I'm not claiming that Win98SE is rock solid stable, just that it's not as
> instable as people seem to think if it's properly maintained.
You're joking, right? The only "routine maintenance" my Linux system
gets is its weekly backup. I certainly don't need to do all of
the crap you listed to keep it perfectly stable. The fact that you
need to do all of these things is indicative of a very poor design,
but then again we all knew that about Windows already.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:49:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZRdX5.4296$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:LEyW5.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> > > Eric Meyer wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before
>> > complaining.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office
> (or
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > like),
>> >> >> > > > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Em
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > RedHat installation is really easy... at least as easy as
> win95/98
>> >> >> > > installation... I've never installed any other distros...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Redhat custom install can be hard, because you need to repartition
>> > your
>> >> > HD.
>> >> >> > Server install should be avoided at all cost, RedHat somehow
> figured
>> > out
>> >> > if
>> >> >> > I choose to install a server, I have no need for information on my
>> > HDs.
>> >> > And
>> >> >> > so it deletes them happily without even asking my opinion about
> it.
>> >> >> > Never installed a workstation RH, can't say anything about it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just read the guides first.
>> >>
>> >> > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it is
> that
>> >> > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the
> installation.
>> >> > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action, you
>> > get a
>> >> > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most
>> > dangerous
>> >> > thing that you can do to your computer?
>> >>
>> >> Reminds me of Windows, "are you sure ... " etc on every stupid thing.
>> >> Now even xcopy whines when you copy over a file. But, just double
>> >> click on a .reg file and it merges it into the registry! No questions
>> >> asked. I remember reading of someone that did this on a .reg file from
>> >> NT on W9x (or maybe vice versa) and destroyed his system.
>>
>> > No, if you double click a reg file, it tell you "Are you sure you want
> to
>> > add the information in <file name> to the registry?"
>>
>> No, it doesn't, it just blithely merges it into the registry.
> It asks you, it doesn't merge anything to the registry by default without
> asking you.
> Here is what the path of the default actions ("Merge", in the registry
> [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\regfile\Shell\Open\Command\]) is: regedit.exe "%1"
> In order for the registry to accept these without giving warning, you need
> to do this: regedit.exe /y "%1"
> So, no, the default is to *ask* you first.
> This behaviour is consistent with every windows that I've worked with
> starting with 95 and upward.
NO IT DOESN'T I have done it. Don't tell me what I know happened
didn't.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:49:56 GMT
From what I understand, the UDMA 100 card mentioned in the original
post is one of those PCI add in cards, and from my OS knowledge, I know
very few OS's outside the Microsoft cage that supports these add in
cards. Also, UDMA donot give spectacular speed increases anyway, so it
was a waste of money buying the card in the first place.
kiwiunixman
WorLord wrote:
> Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of "Kelsey Bjarnason"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
>
>> Odd; I installed it just the other day - or tried to. It wouldn't even
>> recogniz that the drives _existed_, never mind supporting them.
>> UltraDMA-100. Doesn't understand it at all, apparently. 'Course. throwing
>> them onto the IDE bus let it find them - but so much for the UDMA support.
>
>
> Tell me something, do you try to install Intel software onto an IMAC?
>
> No?
>
> Then why are you trying to install an OS that *clearly states* that
> UDMA-100 is *not* supported onto a computer that has a UDMA-100
> controller?
>
> You want to bitch about software, that's fine... I do it a lot myself.
> But trying to install software onto a system that said software
> clearly doesn't support is just an exercise in futility, and you
> deserve every bit of trouble you get.
>
> --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: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:50:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snips]
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZRdX5.4296$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > No, if you double click a reg file, it tell you "Are you sure you want
> to
>> > add the information in <file name> to the registry?"
>>
>> No, it doesn't, it just blithely merges it into the registry.
> If it doesn't, then it's because _you_ (or whoever did your Windows install)
> *specifically* went out of their way to *make* it not ask. It can be done -
> but it's not done that way by default.
NO I DIDN'T. I don't know or care enough to know that much about
windows to make such a change.
Jerry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
