Linux-Advocacy Digest #934, Volume #30 Sat, 16 Dec 00 19:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451895 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Uptimes ("Otto")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Conclusion ("Otto")
Re: MASTERTRADE LINUX ROLL-OUT 11-12-00 ("Adam Warner")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 22:42:42 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on what you consider "off" to be. When you turn your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microwave oven off, do you expect it to lose the time? (Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does presuppose an oven with a clock on the display.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any new models that don't have one of those built in?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they had them, then yeah, I'd expect them to at least turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the display off, and go down to a trickle that only serves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to maintain a few K of RAM (for the clock and maybe some programs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which takes very little power, as evidenced by calculators and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watches, and could be done by battery like it is for CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings on computers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even with the display on, it could still be a trickle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in California.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Illogical. It is quite possible that people will generally know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with a power switch without needing to consult a manual, but will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not generally know how much power is consumed in the on and off states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider the AC adaptor for a modem, for example. The power switch is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the modem, not the AC adaptor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logical. The behavior of the power switch changed from its traditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> role. People *think* it still works the way it did 10 years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really? Your Curtis Mathes is older than that. You claim it kept
>>>>>>>>>>>> the power on.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it was very unusual for its time.
>>>>>>>>>> Really? I had a clock-radio that when "off" kept the clock on. Very usual
>>>>>>>>>> for its time.
>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its behavior isn't capable of being comprehended without logical thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And with logical thought, the average consumer will know how much power
>>>>>>>>>>>> is still being consumed by a unit even when the switch is in the off
>>>>>>>>>>>> position? That's not the issue here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (See definition of intuitive).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are still trying to make decisions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the traditional use of the power switch - power cord setup.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, sounds like your example involves a mislabeled
>>>>>>>>>>>> button. There is a difference between "video blank" and "power off".
>>>>>>>>>>>> You've described the former. I've been talking about the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, they concern the device that serves as a power switch these days.
>>>>>>>>>> An "off" switch that leaves 10 amps of power running isn't much of an
>>>>>>>>>> off switch.
>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue of all these devices still drawing power is keeping a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that systems outside of California were somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to handle it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Outside CA, NY, and MA, there have been more plants built. These
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plants are now selling some of their excess off peak power to CA. In the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> past CA would sell power to Texas during the peak time in Texas and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas would sell to CA during the peak time there. Now the transfer is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all one way. To CA. But it is getting difficult for Texas utilities to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify building more plants just to have power to sell to CA. They have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to justify the need for plants based on need in Texas.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with being designed to handle the load.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like those Californians are going to have to do without their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 72-inch projection televisions. (Did your Curtis Mathes need 10 amps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep its filament going?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a lot of people killed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The power consumed by a device in the off state has absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the issue of whether the power switch itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
>>>>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>>>>>>>>> The switch marked "on" and "off" on my 1903A4 Springfield is a Power
>>>>>>>>> Switch?
>>>>>>>> Show me your 1903A4 Springfield.
>>>>>>> Next time you are in Arizona, give me a call.
>>>>>> What's your number? I usually get to Arizona at least once a year. It's
>>>>>> a big state, however. Don't expect me to look you up in Yuma.
>>>>> Tucson/Pheonix. E-mail me.
>>>> Most trips are to Tucson. Somewhat fewer to Flagstaff, which usually
>>>> involves arrival at Sky Harbor.
>>>>>>>>> Not all switches marked thus perform the same functions or
>>>>>>>>> perform the same functions the same way!
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they do.
>>>>>>> Looking at your post you definately said your concept of a power switch
>>>>>>> has "One position is "on" and the other position is "off"."
>>>>>> Yet you illogically turned that around and tried to make it sound like
>>>>>> every switch with an "on" and an "off" must be a power switch.
>>>>>>> So if that isn't your concept of a power switch, what is?
>>>>>> Something that changes the state of the power applied to a device:
>>>>>> power on, power off. That doesn't mean every switch with an "on"
>>>>>> and an "off" is a power swtich. That's just plain illogical.
>>>>> You said the intuitive concept of a power switch was a switch with one
>>>>> position "on" and the other "off".
>>>> I said my concept of a power switch is that one position is "on" and
>>>> the other position is "off".
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>> And why did you say it was your concept of a power switch?
>>>>>> Because you asked me about my concept of a power switch.
>>>> Note: no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>> why won't my computer fire 30-06 rounds from the magazine when
>>>>>>> the power switch is in the "on" position.
>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that your computer has a magazine
>>>>>> from which it might be able to fire rounds.
>>>>> No, I'm supposing my computer has a switch with one position marked "on"
>>>>> and the other marked "off".
>>>> Why did you mention a magazine from which rounds are fired?
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> The '03A4 loads from a magazine when in the switch is in the "on"
>>>>> position.
>>>> Is it a power switch? If not, then it is irrelevant to the present
>>>> discussion.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> Therefore it is intuitive that the computer would do the same.
>>>> Illogical, given that the discussion is about power switches, not
>>>> some other kind of switches.
>>> Your definition of a power switch :
>> On the contrary, you asked me for a concept of a power switch, not a
>> definition.
Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>>> Therefore, by your define both are power switches.
>> Illogical. All pulsars are neutron stars. Does that mean all
>> neutron stars are pulsars? No. Classic illogic on your part.
Note: no response.
>>> Want to change your definition?
>> I didn't give you a definition. You asked for a concept. I gave
>> you a concept.
>>
>> Want to change your accusation?
> What is your intuitive concept of a power switch?
I already answered that question. You erroneously declared my answer
to be a definition.
> Care to try to duck the question again?
You're erroneously presupposing that I ducked it previously. From
above:
RL] OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
]
DT] One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
Your claim that I ducked it is rather ironic, considering all the
statements of mine that you've ducked. For evidence, see above where
I've written "Note: no response."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451895
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 22:59:15 GMT
Well, the digest seems to have had the desired effect, namely to cut
down on the number of postings and the bandwidth consumed by redundant
material. But there's still that monster .sig of Aaron's. Today's
digest:
22> it's enough
Obviously not.
23> Let's see if Tholen can follow directions...
Let's see if you can take a hint.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 01:01:30 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:913snq$pvc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > As you can see from those cases, which are very far from describing all
> > possible variations, you have a number of settings which should be
> > common to all users, and some which should not, depending on the way the
> > system is used.
>
> Agreed, but defaulting to HKCU if you aren't sure about where this setting
> should belong is never a bad idea, IMO.
Well, I was partially wrong.
I tried to install LCC on my computer, to install, of course, I'd to runas
admin, so I did.
It stuck critical program information in the HKCU of the admin, causing the
program to fail when I tried to run it as another user.
My first thought was that it was another case of trying to write to HKLM.
But it wasn't, since I couldn't find the key it was complaining about in
HKLM, I then tried to run it as admin, which worked flawlessly, then I had
to run as regedit and search the admin's HKCU for lcc's node.
For some very strange reason, it shoved *all* the configurations in HKCU.
That is *not* something that I see often.
I'd to export the admin's settings and import them as the user I'm generally
using.
Now count to then and syncronize your this newsgroup in order to get T.
Max's post about
how this is proof that windows sucks and is a total crapware.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:05:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:04:41 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Brian V. Smith" wrote:
>>
>> I'm asking nicely again - please keep this stuff out of
>> the linux newsgroups! Don't be jerks.
>>
>
>that trick never works.
This time for sure! *rrrrrrripp* PRESTO!!!
*ROARRRR*
No doubt about it; I gotta get me another hat....
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random moose, squirrel, villian, and femme
fatale here
up 83 days, 15:27, running Linux.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:09:17 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >Nor does IIS 5.0, for that matter, or any web server I'm aware of.
: >CAL doesn't mean that.
:
: What about SQL Server? If you have dynamic web content that's served
: from SQL Server, does each simultaneous connection from IIS require a
: CAL or not?
It depends on the site configuration, if the web user does not connect
directly to the SQL server then the answer is no. The web server connects to
the SQL server for data, sort of circumventing licensing. If the web user is
passed to the SQL server by the IIS and connects directly to the SQL server,
then one would need internet connection license. If I recall correctly such
license, unlimited connections, cost $2,500/CPU on the SQL server.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:26:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John W. Stevens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:33:23 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> Pedant point: HP-UX is not the most reliable of Unixes out there.
>
>Ouch!
>
>That smarts . . . just gotta work harder, I guess.
Sorry; wasn't intentional. :-)
Of course, part of the reason I notice these sorts of things is that
(1) I'm pedantically observant, and (2) I used HP-UX a lot at my
contractor's position (I used to work here full-time, but moved to
another company).
>
>> However, it's still better than Microsoft; HP-UX, for all of
>> its bugginess -- which isn't that much, and is mostly confined to
>> various issues deep in the kernel,
>
>If you feel you've found a bug, or have a problem that we are not
>addressing, please let us know.
>
>> presumably, leading to such
>> sillinesses as dead dtterm windows
>
>Did you report this problem? If not, would you mind doing so? I'm not
>aware of any such bug at present, but if you'd care to give a little
>detail about it, I'll look again and make sure that it is being
>addressed.
I haven't reported the problem -- and in any event it seems to be a lot
more reliable now. (I'm currently running
B.10.20 A 9000/785 2003561808 two-user license
on a C360. I'm not sure what's been patched on this box.)
8.0 was pretty bad (for a Unix; NT, however, is worse). 9.0 got better;
the current version (10.20) is rock-solid now, although the uptime for
this box is 9 days for some reason. Probably someone else rebooting it;
I can't say why.
I mostly use this box for application development; at most, I might
tweak a kernel parameter (haven't done that in a long while) to try
to improve performance.
>
>> (bad pty communication?),
>
>No problems here, but then again, I'm in a position to play with all of
>the new patches, releases, etc.
>
>> Of course, part of that may be equipment. HP-UX runs on PA Risc,
>> which is probably a more reliable box than the "El-Cheapo Deapo" PCs.
>
>Yep. The up front cost is higher, but you get a more reliable box, and
>in the end, it actually costs less to buy a workstation than it does to
>buy a PC (assuming that you can do what you need to do on either box, of
>course, otherwise, buy what runs what you need to run, eh?).
>
>> (The more expensive PCs? Can't say, really; I'm not knowledgable
>> enough about the PCI bus and/or other issues to assess its reliability.)
>
>The hardware can be perfectly reliable, and you can still get crashes
>due to software bugs.
>
>Sad, but true.
And here I thought NT's problems were due to bad system administration,
hardware difficulties, iffy power, or the nut behind the keyboard...
(Spot The Sarcasm. :-) )
>
>We build tough. Our customers demand it. And considering some of the
>kinds of abuse I've seen, they NEED it! ;-)
I can see it now.
Unix. The Samsonite of Operating Systems. :-) (Mind you, a
certain luggage company may have to give its OK first -- assuming
they're still around.)
>
>> But somehow, I doubt bad hardware would cause any of the above issues.
>> And I haven't seen any dead dtterms lately (I work as a contractor at
>> my ex-employer, on an HP-UX box), so maybe they patched it.
>
>What version of HPUX are you running?
Again, B.10.20 A 9000/785 2003561808 two-user license on a C360.
Anyway, it may be a non-problem now. (I hope so; I like HP/UX since it's
a little more standard than Solaris -- IMO, anyway; the only significant
discrepancy I've seen versus Linux is the location of the X include files:
/usr/include/X11R6 versus /usr/X11R6/include. On Solaris, they're
still in /usr/openwin/include -- and I've not quite figured out the
required library for the more esoteric stuff such as Motif. HP/UX
puts it in /usr/include/Motif1.2/Xm, which is quite reasonable.)
>
>> I'd trust HP over Microsoft, at least at first blush.
>>
>> [.sigsnip]
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>> up 83 days, 1:39, running Linux.
>
>HP-UX basho B.11.00 E 9000/785 2012732575 8-user license
>
>1:28pm up 51 days, 23:50, 2 users, load average: 1.36, 1.60, 1.51
>
>I'm a kernel developer so this box regularly gets experimented on, which
>is why the up time figure isn't what it would otherwise be.
>
>No application crashes except Netscape, all of which seemed to be caused
>by illegal HTML at certain "authored for IE sites".
I've seen problems with Netscape + Java; it regularly hangs my Linux box.
On HP-UX, it occasionally crashes with a "Bus Error".
I haven't seen it crash on NT -- but then, I don't use it on NT;
I use IE, which has its own problems, mostly of the "C'mon you stupid
browser, I clicked that link already!" variety.
Again, sorry if I've misconstrued your company's product. I'll admit,
I'm not sure how stable "stable" needs to be, and it may depend
on the application. HP/UX is now stable enough for me; I haven't
rebooted this box for a long time (although someone else might).
Hmmm....Unix/Linux on a long-term voyage to Mars....:-)
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random mea culpa here
up 83 days, 15:34, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:34:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John W. Stevens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:48:00 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>kiwiunixman wrote:
>>
>> A concise way of explaining why UNIX is the way it is, "If it an't
>> broken, don't bloody fix it", compared to Microsoft's, "If it is stable,
>> then it needs to be fixed" metality.
>
>Or, try this:
>
>"Unix. Object Oriented even before there *WERE* objects!"
>
>;->
Indeed; that's part of its beauty. File, pipe, socket, symbolic link,
block special, character special, even at one point a directory --
open() handles them all, given the requisite permissions.
Does NT do that? Well, one can CloseHandle() anything, but that's
about it. :-)
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 83 days, 15:54, running Linux.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:53:27 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91g8t7$16ns$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: This statement clearly implies that one reason Netcraft numbers for
Windows
: are lower is because Windows sys admins, as a whole, are less experienced
: than Unix sys admins. But at the same time, Unix requires more work and
: knowledge than an equivalent Unix system. Okay, let's go with that
: assumption. It can mean one of three things:
Your statement is clearly as flawed as the Netcraft numbers are about NT. To
start with Netcraft can not provide uptime numbers for the following
versions, quote from Netcraft side
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#os :
"Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
.
.
NT3/Windows 95
NT4 SP4, SP6 [and the information from service pack 5 seems unreliable]
.
.
Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
point"
Furthermore, if the site uses TCP/IP based server load balancing equipment,
that in itself can throw off the uptime reporting. Not to mention the fact
that if HTTP proxying involved, then Netcraft will not receive report from
the actual web server, rather the intermediate machine will report the
uptime number. The intermediate machine could be Check Point FW-1 on *nix
platform, in which case Netcraft records a firewall on *nix uptime. For all
we know a site is reported as some sort of *nix, in actuality the site might
have server load balancing equipment behind the firewall with NT based web
servers. I built and manage such commercial web sites, Check Point on Nokia
boxes front end and load balancing equipment for NT servers on the back end.
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MASTERTRADE LINUX ROLL-OUT 11-12-00
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:59:19 +1200
Hi kiwiunixman,
> Hmm, no reply, and it has been 5 days, I must be right about Linux being
> ready :)
Regardless of the lack of replies, I found the link informative when you
posted it five days ago. Good to see NZ news appearing here ;-) It would be
interesting to know how they're finding the system.
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:02:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John W. Stevens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:11:11 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Swangoremovemee wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 00:20:16 +0100, SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If some hardware isn't supported for, lets say, Windows, would you still
>> >buy it and try to get it installed? Good luck. This isn't true for
>> >Open-Source OS's.
>>
>> No I wouldn't buy it, but you would be hard pressed to find hardware
>> that isn't supported by Windows unless it is totally machine specific
>> like a memory card for a Sparc or something.
>
>There is a *LOT* of hardware that Windows does not support.
>
>A Windows 98 install I just tried, totally and completely failed because
>Windows did not support the standard hardware installed in the box . . .
>hardware that Linux had been running on absolutely rock solid, 24/7, for
>more than three years.
Dumb question, but ... what would be the point of installing
Windows on such a box? :-)
I could see one doing this if one is upgrading a seldom-used Win95
installation which happens to be on that box (I have two boxes,
both with Win95, both running Linux 24/7, both dualbooting,
if one can call it that when I haven't booted into Windows for
at least 83 days (see sig)). Otherwise, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Or, one wanted to play a game -- I'd love to play Wheel of Time, myself,
on a Linux box, but WinE doesn't quite work with it yet. Maybe I
should try it when I get home, though -- it's been awhile... :-)
>
>Hint: do *NOT* try to install Windows on a system that has only SCSI
>disk drives!!! For some reason, this causes Windows to be violently
>ill. Put an IDE drive in, and things get better, but beware of the TGUI
>9440 cards, as Windows will simply barf all over 'em . . . and watch out
>for GoldStar CD-ROM drives . . . the standard Windows drivers will hang
>one in 30 times when attempting to access the drive when a CDR is in it.
It may depend on the SCSI boards and drivers. My guess would be a
substandard driver for that particular interface card. (But Goldstar's
been around for awhile; I have a VCR made by them. I'm not familiar
with TGUI.)
>
>Also, do *NOT* let Windows attempt to install the drivers from the
>floppy disk supplied with the 3COM 3c59x cards, unless you are
>*ABSOLUTELY* sure that the floppies are perfect . . . Windows will
>delete some critical DLL's *BEFORE* completing a successful install of
>those drivers, leaving you with a "complete reinstall" situation. And
>watch out for . . . oh, never mind. Nobody cares, anyway.
>
>Suffice it to say: wanna run Windows? Buy Windows compatible hardware.
Does Microsoft -- or anyone else -- have a list of known compatible hardware?
Linux does. :-)
>
>And, no, don't ask me how to check data integrity under Windows . . .
>there don't seem to be any tools for this, unlike Linux . . . md5sums,
>and all that, do not seem to be standard tools on Windows boxen.
Nope, although they can be add-ons. Of course, why Microsoft
didn't think of adding them on in the first place is also puzzling
to me.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 83 days, 16:14, running Linux.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
