Linux-Advocacy Digest #995, Volume #30 Wed, 20 Dec 00 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451894 (Curtis)
Re: Windows Stability ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451894
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:11:43 -0500
Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Soltysiak
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > And why are people bothering with this fool?? Ignore him. He's an idiot.
|
| Aaron Kulkis or Dave Tholen?
|
| Just clarification. :)
Both.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:17:06 -0500
"mp3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of factors. First on the list is to use a quality
hardware
> > vendor. The number of times I've seen people complain about stability
then
> > when you inquire it turns out they are running some hacked up PoS with
parts
> > picked up from the bargain basement parts bin.
> >
>
> OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux all run fine on "bargain(sp?)
> basement parts". Are you saying Win2K can not? Are you saying you need
> to pay a premium price for Win2K hardware to get stability?
>
I'm saying anybody in their right mind concerned about stability regardless
of OS buys quality hardware. I'll bet money that all the high-uptime
commercial sites running LINUX are doing so on good quality hardware.
> These reasons for getting stability are exactly why no self respecting
> admin should use Win2K.
> 1. "don't go loading any old piece of software, just the applications
> you need for the task at hand"
>
> Are you saying installing old applications can make Win2K
> unstable? Every Unix I've seen old applications either run or
> don't run, they don't make the computer unstable.
No I'm saying that some applications and drivers have memory leaks etc and
installing them on a production server that doesn't need them is bad idea,
regardless of OS. Problems like memory leaks don't make an OS unstable, but
they will make you reboot it from time to time, again, this is regardless of
OS
>
> 2. "Above all, don't go looking for the driver-de-jour and loading it
> just because its available, this is particularly true with Graphics
> drivers. In a serious NT environment you have a system that
> you can use to test out new drivers, service packs etc and don't
> install on production machines"
>
> Are you saying that 3rd party manufactures don't actually test thier
> own drivers and leaves that up to the customer to do? That can get
> pretty expensive.
Damn straight I'm saying that. Part of the problem is the sheer number of
possible permutations of hardware make it impossible for a vendor to test
more than a small
subset of possible hardware combinations. Again, anybody running a serious
system with concerns about uptime would be well advised not to load the
latest drivers just because they are available. If they solve a problem that
you have and they are stable in your test environment go ahead, otherwise
leave 'em alone. Again, this is not a OS specific peice of advice, ask
anybody in an IT shop where uptime and stability is a concern whether they
automatically load drivers just for the hell of it!
Unfortunately, many people running NT have no uderstanding of these sort of
issues and just assume that if it's available they should load it.
> Never had that problem running Unix.
then all I can say is that you've been bloody lucky or that your experience
of these types of issues on different hardware and OS platforms is so
limited that you don't know what you're talking about.
>Are you saying Microsoft
> doesn't actually test their own service packs?
Goes back to the issue of the almost limitless numbers of possible
combinations of hardware, OS and applications. Microsoft can never possibly
test everything. They are a lot better than they used to be. But if your
system is running fine and you don't have any issues, then don't load the
service pack until you've had time to test on your particular combination of
applications and hardware. It's the old "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
maxim. Again this is common sense.
>Gee, I thought
> they made a stable OS. How can it be stable if "service packs"
> can cause a system instability?
Service packs replace parts of the OS, of course they can cause instability,
only a fool would think otherwise.
>Are you saying you need
> to buy your own computer for testing? Isn't that was driver
> certification is for? Never seen that on Unix.
>
Again, this just indicates that you have very limited experience. Most
companies don't deploy new applications, OS revs etc without first putting
them on a system in a test environment.
>
> Amazing the bullshit you put up with and the extra costs you absorb for
> stability.
I answered what I assumed was a serious query with information gained over
20 years of administrating VMS, UNIX and NT and as Server Product Manager
for large Intel equipment manufacturer. These are all things I would do on
any of those platforms if I wanted to ensure stability of the platform.
Perhaps before I respond further to your drivel you'd like tell us all what
your credentials are so that we can judge whether you have any idea about
what you are talking about.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:20:10 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There is a *LOT* of hardware that Windows does not support.
>
> Some, sure.. but not what i'd call a lot.
That depends on what your definition of is . . . is! ;-)
> I've installed windows on all SCSI systems. As long as the SCSI bios is set
> to the proper INT 13 setting it's not a problem.
With many, many attempts to setup the card differently, I'd be loathe to
claim that it is totally impossible, but I *DID* try tweaking the card .
. .
There was, however, at least one reason why this wouldn't work.
> Trident cards have always been pretty well support. You probably need to
> download an updated driver from them though.
According to Trident, no updated driver existed for this card, nor would
one ever be produced. Support for that card had been terminated.
> Your problem with the Goldstar drive is probably a problem with the drive
> itself. Many drives don't like certain brands of CDR. There is nothing in
> the windows driver that could make the CD-ROM hang on a CDR but not on a
> regular CD.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But remember, Linux was running on this
machine for about three years before this, and this drive *NEVER* gave
me any problems before this.
> That's the install script provided by 3COM, not anything to do with Windows.
That's what I thought, so I tried installing the default drivers that
the
Windows 98 CD supplied for that card . . . the result was once again a
failed install, but this time even more files ended up missing.
All network related, it seems (I'm guessing from the file names, of
course).
> I've used all the above hardware at one time or another without troubles.
> It seems more like you're using marginal second hand hardware or didn't have
> it setup correctly.
That isn't a very supportable theory, as (once again), that hardware
worked just fine for years under Linux.
As for setting up the hardware correctly . . . well, that's part of the
point I was trying to make . . . a great deal of what is considered
good about Windows is simply the fact that the stuff is done for you
by someone else.
If you want a Linux box that is as trouble free, as easy to use as your
Windows box, get it the same way you got your Windows box: as a
complete,
pre-configured and pre-installed system.
> Check out SFC.exe. The system file checker.
Thanks! I take a look.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:26:01 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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.
>
> Why on earth would any home PC user own a SCSI hard disk drive?
Why not?
SCSI is faster, tougher and more efficient in a multi-tasking/multi-user
environment.
> Scanner,
> maybe. If your an "entusiast" who owns a SCSI primary disk drive, then you
> should know better.
Shoud know better than . . . what?
Are you saying that the Windows 98 box has a big red sticker on it that
warns me that Windows 98 doesn't support SCSI-only systems?
Mac's support it, Linux suports it . . . Windows is the odd OS out.
<sarcastic zing>
I guess Windows just . . . sucks! ;-)
</sarcastic zing>
> Windows NT & 2000 (and NTFS) all feature data integrety tools.
Did you notice that I was talking about Windows 98?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:33:07 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Hauck
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:43:44 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:41:04 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >>Why on earth would any home PC user own a SCSI hard disk drive?
> >
> >I have one because the IDE drive failed and I had a spare SCSI card and
> >disk that were removed from a server I upgraded. So now the machine is
> >SCSI. Did I do it wrong? Linux installed just fine, no complaints.
>
> Yes, you did it all wrong; you're supposed to obey the Whims of
> the Wintel Cabal and go right out and purchase a $3,000 system
> complete with 50 GB IDE hard drive, the latest in video gaming technology,
> 512M of RAM, and Windows Millennium. :-) :-) :-)
>
> Uh oh...is that the whup-whup of black helicopters I hear? :-)
No, that was the scream of a man whose checkbook has just been
horribly violated!!
:-)
I tried that once . . . that was the second machine I ever installed
Linux
on. Couldn't get Windows to work correctly, even on a pre-built,
pre-installed machine, so I downloaded slackware, and yes, it was
a chore to get installed and configured correctly, but in the end, I
succeeded, while Windows never let be get past first base.
> Yep; two different issues. Mind you, the only filesystem that I can
> remember that even tried to address data integrity -- as opposed
> to merely filesystem structure integrity -- is an old version of
> AmigaDOS, which had a header and checksum on every block. A
> later revision removed the header and allowed the data to fill the
> block -- all 512 bytes of it.
I'm currently runnin three identical SCSI disks, with all but the
swap and root partitions configured for Software RAID-5 or
RAID-0 . . . 0 for SPEED, and 5 for SAFETY! 8-)
Yes, you pay more for SCSI, but you get higher quality drives, too.
I've never had *ANY* problems with SCSI drives, while I had to return
three IDE drives over a five year period (before I went pure SCSI).
> It's possible VMS's file system has or had that capability, though. I
> don't remember now. I also suspect that journaling records in a filesystem
> such as ReiserFS have checksums -- I hope so.
ReiserFS supports file system structure integrity, not data integrity.
It would be nice( data integrity checks ), though, wouldn't it?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:35:32 -0500
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > Typical liberal. Complains that nobody is fixing his problems for him.
>
> And which of our nation's problems are you fixing, wannabe-war-hero?
Tell us again you how believet that German, Japanes, North Korean,
Japanese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese soldiers never fired at
American medics.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:35:39 -0500
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > > YOU ARROGANT FUCKING ASSHOLE!
> > >
> > > Merry Christmas to you, too!
> >
> > Glad to see that you recognize what you are.
>
> And when will you recognize what you are, lying wannabe "war-hero"?
Tell us again you how believet that German, Japanes, North Korean,
Japanese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese soldiers never fired at
American medics.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:43:34 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> 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? :-)
Actually, that's a very good question . . . one I repeatedly asked
myself!
HP's a multi-OS company, so occasionally I'm forced to work on Unix
to Windows compatibility issues. That machine was the one that I
thought
would be most likely to be compatible.
> 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.
I'd some USB issues to investigate. Which also explains why Win98,
'stead of NT (better/more USB support).
> It may depend on the SCSI boards and drivers.
An AHA-2490UW card. You'd think that would be well supported by just
about everyone.
And I tweaked the card settings every which way but loose . . . no
joy.
And no, I wasn't deliberately trying to create a failed install . . .
I really did need that install to work so I could do some work at
home.
I finally gave up and borrowed a machine from a co-worker.
> 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.)
It's an older Trident card.
The driver has a bug that Trident is not ever going to fix, as they've
abandoned support for that card.
> Does Microsoft -- or anyone else -- have a list of known compatible hardware?
> Linux does. :-)
Not that I'm aware of, but if it does, the next question is equally
important: do they have documentation on the proper configuration for
that hardware?
Like, say, the proper AHA-2940UW BIOS settings for Windows 98?
> 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.
My suspicion, unconfirmed and evidenly unconfirmable, is that maybe
the CD is corrupted in some small but significant fashion . . . so
checksumming the entire disk, or at the very least, individual files,
would be a good idea, yes?
But searching the MS site gave me no joy, and after thinking about
it, I can see why . . . checksumming an entire CD is trivial under
Linux, just cksum the stream off of the raw CD device. But I can't
think of anyway to do the same think under Windows, can you?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:46:32 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> > > Neither do the folks who run Solaris, SCO or Aix, MVS, VM or Mac/OS.
> >
> > But when having that choice might benefit them . . . they're stuck,
> > while on the other hand, when I wanted RAID-0 and RAID-5 capability on
> > my Linux box, all I had to do was download the patch, apply it,
> > recompile, reboot, and I was off and running.
> >
> > That isn't something you can do with Windows or the MacOS.
>
> Yes you can, Win2K support RAID-0, RAID-5 and another one, who number I
> forgotten, it may be RAID-1, but I'm totally not sure here.
No, the issue was "patch, recompile, and install a new kernel", not
whether or not you can do RAID.
But, tell me, how do you do RAID on Windows 98?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:51:32 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Well, yes, I'd still like to have choices.
> >
>
> "Choices". There's a funny term.
Ahh . . . I'm glad you're having fun.
> When Linux zealots say "choices",
Ohhhh! I smell a straw man, or ad hominem attack coming . . .
> they
> mean the only way to perform a task is THEIR WAY.
YESS!!!! (the crowd goes wild!)
He called it again!
[standard party-line-winvocate stuff snipped]
> > It isn't. You don't use Linux, do you?
>
> Linux and UNIX are stuck in the same disgusting rut they were in 1981,
No, they aren't. There are all *KINDS* of differences between the
state-of-the-art Unix of 1981, and the modern day Unix.
DevFS and modules, to name just *TWO*.
> UNIX has no real choice, it's a propriotory design
> from the ground up.
And, pray tell, what is the Windows design, if not proprietary?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:53:55 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> A number of issues here; Unix is a trademark of somebody (probably
> either OpenGroup or Sun) and official Unix code has to be therefrom.
> Since Linux doesn't use any such code, it can't be Unix(tm).
At last check, it was Unixware that owned that trademark,
though of course, I could be dead wrong.
> Of course, it looks so much like Unix from the app developers and
> the end-users point of view that it makes little difference, perhaps. :-)
Unix: the only OS that has true competition.
;=>
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:01:28 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> > >
> > > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration of
> the
> > > > > devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
> > > >
> > > > What the heck are you trying to say?!
> > >
> > > TRANSLATION: You plug it in, and poof, it works, PERIOD.
> >
> > That doesn't happen in Windows, either.
>
> Really? I plug a USB device in, Windows detects it, asks me to wait while it
> gather info about the device, install drivers if it has ones, ask for
> drivers if it doesn't.
On four separate occasions:
1) Install device.
2) Windows98 goes CRUNCH!
> And that is *all*.
Lucky you. I get a very similiar experience under Linux, with the
exact same caveats for Windows: use the right hardare, and it works.
> How is it working on Linux? I never used USB on Linux.
See above. As always, hardware that implements a secret, proprietary
interface is either problematical, or down right unsupported under
Linux,
but then again . . . as someone who knows this stuff, I highly recommend
you avoid that exact same hardware under Windows, as well.
Similiar problems, similiar reasons.
Or, as I was quoted as saying the other day, after crunching through a
USB trace: "WTF is that!? That isn't kosher!"
Some manufacturers can be trusted to create solid, stable, well tested
drivers for their proprietary stuff . . . some cannot. Logitech does
better than most at this.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
