Linux-Advocacy Digest #974, Volume #30 Tue, 19 Dec 00 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (.)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Pb with RealTek LAN Adapter ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (mitch)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: 19 Dec 2000 16:06:10 GMT
Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:56:32 GMT, mitch
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 18 Dec 2000 21:04:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Interesting that youve chosen an operating system partially because
>>>its supports the instant messenger software that you like.
>>>
>>>Seriously though, please do us all a favor and stay far, far away
>>>from linux. The lest 'instant messenger' types we have to deal with,
>>>the better.
>>
>>I am unsure of your logic here... Are you saying that I shouldn`t use
>>linux because I use instant messaging software? Are you judging my
>>ability to run linux based solely on *one* of the applications I wish
>>to run? Who is the 'we' that you speak of? I`m sure a lot of the
>>people you are collectively associating yourself with do not agree
>>with your statements.
> I agree with [EMAIL PROTECTED], so theres two :)
It seems to me that he may not be too clear on my reasoning...Which
is this:
Instant messenger type people usually use instant messenger software
because they are either too thick or too lazy to figure out IRC; the
great grandaddy of all live text venues. (alright, so talk is the
great grandaddy. I didnt mention talk so as to not confuse people who
use instant messenger systems).
Note that not all people who use instant messenger software are thick
or lazy.
But if someone decides to not use linux because they *prefer microsofts
implementation of instant messengering* then they can quite gladly
fuck off. Microsofts implementation of this and most other things
is bloated, ugly and full of holes.
>>
>>Please understand that I have run linux in the past. It was great,
>>and served me well for the applications I needed to run at the time,
>>but now I need to use a completely different set of apps, which are
>>not supported and do not have a reasonable equivalent on the linux
>>platform. Not exactly a shortcoming of the OS itself, just
>>unfortunate for needle-dicked-OS-worshippers
> Ahh now we see you at your debating best ?
>> like yourself that I now
>>use an OS that you stupidly, and childishly 'choose' to hate for no
>>good reason.
> Yttrx hates Windows no more than I do, and I dont hate it at all. I just
> dont *need* it. Big Difference.
Indeed. Ive mentioned over and over again that I dont really have a
problem with the windows operating system, microsoft, or bill gates
himself. I do, however, have a problem with masses of pea-brained
lemmings who dont understand the way computers work at ALL, singing
false praises of a company to whom innovation is itself heresy.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
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: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:14:23 GMT
>Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Jeff Glatt wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
>> >Windows has brought us the largest collection of
>> >sponge heads in computing since the invention
>> >of pac-man.
>> Correction: Tholen uses OS/2
>Tholen isn't that smart.
You're right that Tholen isn't that smart. In fact, he's rather dumb.
But he still uses OS/2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:43:00 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:58:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz
Kylheku) wrote:
>>Welcome to the "Joy of Linux".
>
>Don't be a retard. The unavailability of specs for proprietary hardware is not
>a Linux problem. It's a problem that affects users of free software, which
>includes Linux. It's not a problem *caused* by that software.
The retards are the people who like to point the finger elsewhere when
something doesn't work, even if they are correct, the net result is
the same.
The hardware works under Windows, and not under Linux and that is the
only thing in the world that matters to the person holding a now
useless piece of hardware in their hands all because they decided to
use an inferior operating system, Linux.
You can argue till you are blue in the face about the evil hardware
manufacturers withholding specs but it still boils down to the same
thing.
Linux sucks at supporting modern hardware.
The Linux users need a reality check to see how much they are missing
since they last used Windows circa 3.0
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:44:18 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:01:26 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.ibm.com/software/news-alert/20001208/lxtla/
>So that's ONE. Does 1== lots in your mind then?
Sure, when ONE costs $3 million. That's 3,000 PC's worth.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:46:41 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:27:28 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of course, in order to get support from the $79 copy of Mandrake 7.2 for
>this problem, I need to pay for support, since installation support doesn't
>cover this, since it works "just fine" in non-accelerated SVGA mode (even
>though I get lots of quirks with that as well).
And you are limited to 2 incidents via Email, a little fact they left
off the box cover.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:48:09 -0600
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>This model for computing was fine for 30 years ago, or 20 or 15 years ago,
>but today? WHY? Because UNIX had NO CHOICE 30 years ago doesn't mean Linux
>has to be the same way. Hell, UNIX doesn't even have to be the same way
>after all this time.
but have u ever noticed that all the 13 BASIC INTERNET gateways/routers; the
internic.net etc; use UNIX for their OS? what if they started using Winblows?
hehe guess what the internet is down coz the internic.net crashed. lol i find it
so funny.
so plz get a life and see that the 30+ year old concept still survives coz it
works. and it works better that any other todays technology.
i'm posting this from my college LAN. i use linux rh 6.2 at home. in college i
have 2 use win2k. :-(
but the point is that without unix there would be no internet. so there!
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:53:00 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > A small embedded ROM system can be an OS. The X window system,
> > though
> > > > > > > vastly more complicated, and in some ways similar to an OS, is
not
> > an
> > > > > > > OS. The same goes for MS Windows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > X Windows does not offer scheduling, memory management, file
> > systems,
> > > > etc...
> > > > >
> > > > > Not relevant.
> > > >
> > > > It's completely relevant. An OS provides these things. If it
doesn't,
> > it's
> > > > not an OS.
> > >
> > > DOS does not do scheduling, but it is an OS, X does have an amount of
> > > memory management. And many embedded operating systems do not have
file
> > > systems. Thus not relevant.
> >
> > DOS does do scheduling, but it schedules things like interrupts.
>
> DOS does not "schedule" interrupts. It provides an API for setting an
> interrupt address. Nothing stands between an interrupt handler and the
> CPU under DOS. A DOS extender like QEMM, EMM386, and Windows 9x has to
> intercept the interrupt because they are in protected mode and must
> reflect the interrupt to the correct VM.
Interrupts are prioritized, this is a crude form of scheduling.
> > File
> > systems are an example of I/O, which is what an OS controls.
> Yes, but not all operating systems have a file system, so it is not a
> prerequisite.
It was an example. If a system provides a file system, then the OS provides
it.
> > Typically an
> > OS does things which a program cannot (or does not) itself do, such as
> > arbitrating time-slices, knowing how to talk to I/O devices, etc...
>
> DOS does not arbitrate time slices, bit it is an OS. DOS does not even
> talk to the disk drive, it uses the BIOS.
DOS isn't much of an OS.
> > Technically, an OS is just another program. As such, your arguments
about
> > what is and isn't an OS is largely meaningless, since to a Java program,
the
> > JVM is the OS, yet to the JVM, whatever API it uses is the OS, which
itself
> > may use an API for what it thinks is the OS.
>
> This is exactly my point. The Java VM is middleware, just like Windows.
And just like DOS, and just like the BIOS.
> > > > Oh, that explains why all those Linux-only systems out there run
Lilo
> > then.
> > >
> > > No, LILO is a convenience. As stated. While it is not absolutely
> > > necessary, it saves the hassle of running fdisk to change the OS in
> > > which you boot.
> >
> > Again, that explains why all those Linux-only system use Lilo. The real
> > reason is that if they used your method, they could not construct a
> > partition table.
>
> What are you talking about? A boot loader is a very convenient thing.
> What does this have to do with constructing a partition table? One would
> use fdisk to change bootable partitions.
If you copied the vmlinuz file over the MBR to make it self-bootable, you
would destroy the partitioning information making it impossible to create
partitions.
> > > > > You seem to be confusing Windows 9x with NT. I refer you to Andrew
> > > > > Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows 95, Developers Resource Kit"
or
> > > > > "Inside Windows 95" by Adrian King. (MS Press). Or you could
download
> > > > > the Windows DDK and read the help files.
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm not. I've read Unauthorized Windows 95 at least a dozen
times
> > and
> > > > know it inside and out.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, page 146 states what DPMI is:
> > > >
> > > > "DPMI stands for DOS Protected Mode Interface [...] Despite the
name,
> > DPMI
> > > > isn't the same thing as a DOS extender. Instead, DPMI is a set of
INT
> > 2Fh
> > > > and INT 31h services you can use to write a DOS extender thats
> > compatible
> > > > with Windows or 386 memory managers".
> > > >
> > > > In other words, Windows is itself a memory manager, and provides a
DPMI
> > > > interface to DOS applications and DOS extenders. Windows itself is
not
> > a
> > > > DOS extender.
> > >
> > > I will not argue with Schulman's factual observations, because they
are
> > > largely accurate. I disagree with his conclusions, which are
> > > questionable. DPMI is the interface by which Windows manages page
> > > manipulation and memory management as well as other things.
> > >
> > > The Windows 386 executive is a DPMI provider. It always has been. The
> > > Windows system VM runs in a DPMI virtual machine. This is verifiable.
> >
> > Given that the Windows system VM itself is what controls the VM's, you
seem
> > to have created a circular redundancy. If the VMM controls all other
VM's,
> > then how can it, itself live in a DPMI VM? The part you are missing out
on
> > is that Windows requires a DPMI server to create the VMM, but then it
> > replaces it. This is sumarized on page 171 by a chart which shows the
> > version numbers returned before and after Win386 is loaded.
>
> Lets go through this one last time. You will have to look at the Windows
> DDK, right now you are arguing from ignorance.
I'm using the exact same source you relied on to prove your point. So now,
because I point out the flaw in your argument, your source is no longer
valid? Further, you are now shifting the burden of proof from yourself to
me, which indicates a failing argument.
> The "Windows 386 executive" is a DOS extender. It creates a system VM in
> which the original DOS is run. The Windows environment is also run
> within the system VM. All Windows applications are run in the system VM
> as well. Virtual DOS boxes are run, separate from the system VM, but
> they are not "Windows" programs.
Again, Schulman (who you used to prove your argument) states specifically in
many places that Windows runs the system copy of DOS in a V86 session under
Windows control. You still have a circular argument.
> The Windows 386 executive (VMM) does not schedule 32 bit Windows
> threads, that is done by the Windows environment within its VM. The
> Windows 386 executive (VMM) only schedules VMs.
Your claim is that the system VM lives in a V86 mode VM (or more accurately,
that the System DOS VM is the same VM that the system VM uses). You seem to
indicate here that there are two scehdulers (well, three if you count the 16
bit co-operative one). Further, your own statements here would indicate
that the VMM is in fact an OS, since it's in charge of controlling the VM's.
> The API which the "Windows system" uses to manage memory and resources
> within its VM is largely DPMI.
Oh, so now it's "largely" DPMI, rather than your previous statement that it
was completely DPMI.
> All of the above is factually accurate. If you disagree, that's fine,
> but I will ignore any argument unless you give me a page, or number of
> pages, from the Windows DDK that refute this.
Strange that you provide no such cites to back up your claims. The only
cites you've mented are King and Schulman, and i've proven that what you
claim (at least Schulman) says is not in fact what he says.
> > In order for a "DPMI virtual machine" to exist, there must be code
running
> > as the DPMI server. The DPMI server cannot itself be running in a DPMI
> > virtual machine.
>
> The Windows 386 executive is separate from the system VM. The Windows
> 386 executive is a DPMI DOS extender. AFAIK still version 0.9 as well.
Ahh.. so now we get to the meat. Now you are claiming that Windows itself
is not in fact a DOS extender, but that the Windows 386 executive is.
> > No, you said "Take a look low down dude. The Windows executive is a DPMI
> > environment and Windows run in a virtual DOS machine within it. BTW:
Windows
> > runs in the same virtual machine as the actual DOS OS because each
Windows
> > program has to have a DOS PSP."
> >
> > This is verifiably wrong. Yes, it's true that Windows programs have to
have
> > a DOS PSP, but that isn't related to running in the same VM as the DOS
VM.
> > Those are merely data structures which are mapped into the same virtual
> > memory.
>
> DOS PSP? Perhaps not directly related, but very important.
So in other words, your use in the sentance was a red herring.
> Also, I said, unambiguously, that each windows program ran in the same
> VM and that memory protection was managed through page table
> manipulation. This is a fact, you disagreed, you were wrong, so admit
> it.
I already stated I was wrong when I used the wrong term.
> > NT runs 16 bit Windows in a virtual DOS machine, it's a program called
WOW,
> > or Windows on Windows.
>
> There is usually one wow session started on NT startup. This can be
> controlled through a registry setting to save memory, if you are not
> going to run 16 bit windows programs. When you click on a 16 bit windows
> program, you can bring up a run dialog that has a checkbox which asks
> "Run in separate memory space" which will run this 16 bit program in ins
> own VM and its own copy of wow.
This has nothing to do with my statements which you deleted, which is that
the Win32 applications were all running in the same VM under NT, along with
the Win32 subsystem.
> A 32 bit program can run a 16 bit program in its memory space. Look at
> TWAIN drivers, which are often 16 bit programs with 32 bit thunk layers.
> This ability to run 16 bit programs within the VM of a 32 bit app is
> very important. This bit is documented in the NT DDK or SDK, so you'll
> have to read that too.
I don't disagree with this. I never said I did.
> Again, I will ignore any argument unless you can point me to a DDK page
> that refutes this, because it is factually accurate.
Prove your own statements first.
> > > > Clearly from Schulman's picture, DOS is *NOT* in the system VM nor
does
> > it
> > > > detail how Windows depends on DPMI, only that it provides extensive
DPMI
> > > > services.
> > >
> > > If you spent the time to read the text surrounding the picture, it
makes
> > > big mention that Microsoft has left DOS out of this picture.
> >
> > Yes, but it does *NOT* say that DOS runs in the same VM as the System
VM.
> > In fact, other parts of the book specifically say that it runs it's DOS
> > dependant code in a *SEPERATE* VM under Windows control. Furthermore,
DOS
> > needs to run in V86 VM, while the System VM is *NOT* running in a V86
VM.
>
> It neither supports nor denies my assertions. I leave you to read the
> DDK documentation and do some experiments. Specifically, find out how to
> make DOS calls from within a VxD, find out how to signal a Windows
> program from an interrupt. When you understand how to do both of these
> things, and what the prerequisites are, you will not be arguing.
You claimed it did support your assertion, then when proven wrong you claim
that Schulman isn't a valid source afterall.
> > > The paragraph starts with:
> > >
> > > "In the meantime, there's one very noticeable feature of this diagram:
> > > MS-DOS is missing" and goes on to explain, that DOS is present only
left
> > > out of the diagram for marketing purposes.
> > >
> > > That whole chapter explains and verifies everything I written here,
and
> > > the only difference between Schulman's position and mine, is that I
> > > don't believe Windows is an OS.
> >
> > There also seem to be factual differences between your position and
> > Schulmans, as illustrated above.
>
> Also remember that Schulman has simplified some things for publishing.
> This is sort of related to my biggest problem with what he writes. As a
> software developer, I shudder at people using his books to figure out
> how to write programs. He likes undocumented API sets, and (I don't know
> if he still does) advocates using them. This seems a bit reckless to me.
> If it weren't for both Petzold and Schulman, Windows program quality
> would be better. Unfortunately, in Windows, only Microsoft application
> writers get documentation to these undocumented APIs, thus a developer
> must rely on these sorts of books to figure out how to do some of the
> most basic things to compete with Microsoft.
Well, then you shouldn't have used schulman to validate your story. You
should have instead used cites from the DDK to back up your point.
> I use Linux, true. But I have also done extensive work on Windows and NT
> in both application space and kernel space. I have done real-time
> systems in both. Many of the things you are trying to argue are not
> opinions, but are how Windows is constructed, and arguing, or trying to
> disprove through debate, what can easily be verified by reading the DDKs
> is a waste of time for both of us.
If it's so easy, then why haven't you provided cites?
Besides, I too am involved in real-time systems in NT for the last 4 years,
and have done so in 9x in the past. Your experience doesn't mean anything.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Pb with RealTek LAN Adapter
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:49:25 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:19:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I can ping myself, but I can't see any other Win98 hosts with fixed
>> adresses.
>>
>> What's the matter ?
>>
>> Nicolas
You are running Linux, which is an inferior operating system.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:55:14 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91nn12$no5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <IK9_5.6919$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You sound so sure of yourself. Too bad you're wrong. On many accounts.
>
> I'm not wrong for Windows 98/ME.
Yes you are.
> > First, the registry can be copied. It's just a file. additionally,
each
> > user has their own reigstry hive with unique settings (from the
HKEY_USER
> > section).
>
> The registry is a couple of files on Windows 98/ME.
I just said that. "additionally, each user has their own registry hive".
> > Second, the registry can be converted to a text file, using Regedit
> from the
> > command line. changes can be made to the text file, then it can be
> > converted back to registry format (again at the command line).
>
> True, you can generate a text file with REGEDIT. But how do you load it
> back into Windows 98/ME?
By using Regedit to import it back in.
> > Third, Windows NT (which is what we're talking about, not Win9x)
> provides a
> > registry backup utility called rdisk that creates emergency repair
disks.
> > You just boot from the NT boot disks or CD and choose the recovery
option,
> > then insert the repair disk when asked.
>
> I was talking about Windows 98/ME (I did mention MSDOS). I'm sorry, I
> missed that in the thread.
98 provides a registry backup utility as well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:51:03 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:04:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
wrote:
>
>Have you tried the messenger apps on Linux? Mandrake comes with lots, but I'm
>not sure what comes with other distributions. You say leanest/most usable on
>Windows, so surely you just need the leanest/most usable on Linux? I expect
>you'll be waiting for hell to freeze over if you're looking for Messenger to
>be ported to Linux :-)
>
Messenger is just one of the many apps I use on windows - just one or
two guys kinda jumped on to this particularly because a) it`s a ms app
and b) messenger apps are apparently lame.
As for messenger being ported? Nah - I`m just waiting for Windows to
be ported... it is just a GUI after all... isn't it? ;)
>
>If that's how you feel then just use Windows. There's no point switching
>unless you have a reason to.
>
>>I`m sure that eventually linux will provide a platform which will
>>attract the applications that I use.
>
>If you're prepared to wait there's no reason you can't just use both until
>they do have what you need.
Nice to hear words of rationality in here for a change.
Cheers,
mitch.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:57:27 -0600
"Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nxG%5.14050$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <yOF%5.11089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That depends on the problem, now doesn't it?
> >
> > For instance, I've tried everything anyone can think of to get XFree86
> > 4.0.1 to recognize my tseng et6000 based Hercules Dynamite 128/Video
> > card,
> > and so far no luck. The solution seems to be to install CVS, retrieve
> > the most recent XFree86 source files, then figure out the arcane
> > building method used by XFree86 to build the driver I need (a patch was
> > made in September which may have fixed the problem, but there hasn't
> > been a binary release since July).
> >
> > Of course, in order to get support from the $79 copy of Mandrake 7.2 for
> > this problem, I need to pay for support, since installation support
> > doesn't cover this, since it works "just fine" in non-accelerated SVGA
> > mode (even though I get lots of quirks with that as well).
> >
> > I'm sure for every weird incident you can come up with, I can probably
> > come up with something equally as weird under Linux.
>
> The solution to your problem is quite obvious: get a video card that is
> supported or pay for support.
The card is claimed to be supported, but because of a bug is not.
> If you bought a copy of Windows NT or Windows 2000 off the shelf, you
> would have to pay for support, so why are you unwilling to do the same
> with Linux? You think Microsoft doesn't charge for support?
No, you get 30 days of support, not to mention that this support includes
any hardware that's on the HCL.
> When Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 first came out, they didn't have the
> same driver support that Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 had either. It
> wasn't until NT 4.0 that NT began to enjoy the same amount of supported
> hardware. But, of course, you WinTrolls conveniently forget that.
No, you conveniently forget that the card is claimed to be supported, but
isn't.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:03:37 -0600
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:13:39 GMT, Bracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <yOF%5.11089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> That depends on the problem, now doesn't it?
> >>
> >> For instance, I've tried everything anyone can think of to get XFree86
> >> 4.0.1 to recognize my tseng et6000 based Hercules Dynamite 128/Video
> >> card,
> >> and so far no luck. The solution seems to be to install CVS
> Your using Linux and *dont* have CVS installed ????
Why should I?
> >>, retrieve
> >> the most recent XFree86 source files,
> At least you *can*, you also forgot to mention how easy it is to do this
> using CVS.
Yes, "how easy". Apart from the fact that most of the documentation is out
of date, and many mirrors haven't been updated in months. You have to go
searching for for a correct one, since the claimed support site
(sourceforge) hasn't been kept up to date either.
> >> then figure out the arcane
> Hmm why do I suspect a Wintroll here ??
Have you ever tried to recompile XFree86 from CVS? They don't use normal
make files, you have to first generate makefiles specific to your platform
using imake, which requires knowing a rather arcane command line set of
flags which do not appear to be easily found.
> >> building method used by XFree86 to build the driver I need (a patch was
> >> made in September which may have fixed the problem, but there hasn't
> >> been a binary release since July).
> Oh heavens, nasty X ***Free*** 86!
Free refers to freedom, not price.
> >> Of course, in order to get support from the $79 copy of Mandrake 7.2
for
> >> this problem, I need to pay for support, since installation support
> >> doesn't cover this, since it works "just fine" in non-accelerated SVGA
> >> mode (even though I get lots of quirks with that as well).
> Kinda reminds me of the poor Diamond Stealth support Win95 had when I used
it.
> Dang, I never thought of bitching all over usenet about it!
Microsoft didn't claim to support it, now did they?
> >> I'm sure for every weird incident you can come up with, I can probably
> >> come up with something equally as weird under Linux.
> My Win95 was unable to ever determine the correct interrupt of the cheap
> ISA NE2000 cards I used, and had to set them manually.
> ... Your turn ?
The Red hat 6.2 install was unable to allow you to pick which network card
to install from in a network install. It just grabbed the first one, and
that one (in my case) wasn't connected to the internet, with no way to
change it. I had to remove the other card first, then reconfigure once
installed.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
