Linux-Advocacy Digest #56, Volume #31 Mon, 25 Dec 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Bob Lyday)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (mlw)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows Stability ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:43:30 GMT
SuSE 7 is not available in the typical sense.
There is an evaluation version ONLY. All other upgrades performed must be
done manually. 7.0 is available as an EVAL version ISO image which
functions exclusively off the CDROM and uses an FS image file on a FAT
volume to accomidate "changes".
If this person want's 7, he has to BUY IT.
Well, there goes another "Linux is Free" advantage.
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "steve@x" wrote:
>
> >
> > so far these are the suggestions given to install one simple application
> > on linux:
>
> You forgot the main suggestion:
>
> Upgrade your suse to something a bit more recent -
>
> say 7.0?
>
> > 1. uninstall Suse, and install debian OS, and use apt-get (can't do, old
kernel)
> > 2. use rpmfind to look for dependencies. (I did, does not solve the
problem)
> > 3. install helix (I did, did not solve the problem, it comes with old
abiword)
> > 4. use --force --nodeps on RPM v3 to force installaing (I did, does not
work)
> > 5. download abiword package build with rpm V3. (I did, but it needs a
package
> > that requires rpm V4)
> > 6. Build from sources (so, what is the point of package management on
linux?).
> > 7. install RPM V4 (can't do, becuase it needs a package that needs RPM
V4
> > to install).
> > 8. switch to windows (I am allready on windows).
> >
> > Is this the OS that is supposed to bring MS to its knees? what a joke.
>
> I'm sorry to hear of your woes, and don't deny that you are well
> and truly flummoxed and floundering - however, the possibility
> occurs to me that you have manufactured the whole incident
> with the goal of finding something to complain about, and have
> no interest in actually finding a solution.
>
> If you are in earnest, start with a more recent distro!
>
> Cheers,
>
> jjs
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:47:30 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
israel raj thomas wrote:
>
> >You seem to have picked one point out of the post out of many good ones and
>overdone it.
> > As a NEW OS2 (Joe Blow no less) user and happy with it,I'm using v3, lets see
>positive feed back.
> >You seem to be a Linux fan, fine, but please don't rock the OS2 boat.
>
> Learn to read carefully.
> I suggested " NetBSD, OpenBSD ,FreeBSD, Inferno or even Linux."
> I began using Linux around 1992. It is too easy to use and is now
> pretty boring. I now prefer some of the others on the list.
>
> The reality is that nowdays, there is a range of operating systems now
> ( NT, 2000Pro , 2000Server , 2000 Advanced Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
> Inferno or even Linux that routinely whip OS/2's ass.
You are obviously an idiot. NT, 2000Pro, 2000Server, 2000Advanced
Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux do not whip OS/2 ass in any way
whatsoever, really. The MS choices are only better in better
compatibility with 2000 client (surprise) and SW/HW support, Linux and
the BSD's are better in stability only. NetBSD and Linux have been
ported to more platforms. All the MS OS's are among the worst server
OS's on the market. OS/2 has a better GUI than any of the above by
far. OS/2 can multitask and multithread better than any OS on the
list. OS/2 is faster and manages resources better than any OS on the
list. OS/2 is more secure than any OS on the list except maybe Open
BSD. All of the BSD's and Linux are excellent OS's but OS/2 is
better.
I have never heard of Inferno.
Face it,
> operating system theory and practice have come a long way since OS/2.
You are an idiot. All of the BSD's and Linux are based on technology
from the mid-70's to the mid-to-late 80's. NT is from the same
time-frame as OS/2. OS/2 is based on technology from the late 80's to
the mid-90's. OS/2 is one of the most modern OS's on the market today.
Never heard of Inferno.
>
> I find that current OS/2 users are a bit like Amiga users, graying at
> the edges and using OS/2 either due to nostalgia ,
You are wrong.
fear of / inability
> to learn a new os
Many of them have already used many of your choices above.
or too poor to afford the hardware for anything
> decent.
Most OS/2 users are making above-average incomes.
> Inferno is a virtual operating system with a virtual filesystem and a
> virtual machine.
Would like to learn more about it.
> Sorry, Linux is good at SMP and is very fast on minimal hardware.
OS/2 is faster.
--
Bob
In the interest of the Christmas spirit, the nasty anti-Dubya sig has
been put aside. Don't despair, it will return shortly. ;) However,
spammers will get no mercy during the holidays. Therefore, you must
continue to remove "killthespammers" to reply. ;)
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:55:47 +0100
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> SuSE 7 is not available in the typical sense.
>
> There is an evaluation version ONLY. All other upgrades performed must be
> done manually. 7.0 is available as an EVAL version ISO image which
> functions exclusively off the CDROM and uses an FS image file on a FAT
> volume to accomidate "changes".
>
> If this person want's 7, he has to BUY IT.
>
> Well, there goes another "Linux is Free" advantage.
>
Sure, you expect to write to SuSe and tell them, "hey, send me
your 6 CD's and 1 DVD, your handbook of 640 pages, several
other books et al" and you won't pay a dime!
Youre for sure a windows looser, no one else would show so low
intelligence for all the world to see.
You still have not got the message that SuSe (or RedHat, Mandrake etc)
CAN un SHOULD charge money (for the CD'S (they cost money to manufacture)
for the books (they aren't cheap)). Well, SuSE 7 Pro costs less than 60
Dollars. Compre that to the windows prices and then come back to us
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:11:04 +0100
Bob Lyday wrote:
> israel raj thomas wrote:
> >
> > >You seem to have picked one point out of the post out of many good ones
> > >and overdone it.
> > > As a NEW OS2 (Joe Blow no less) user and happy with it,I'm using v3,
> > > lets see positive feed back.
> > >You seem to be a Linux fan, fine, but please don't rock the OS2 boat.
> >
> > Learn to read carefully.
> > I suggested " NetBSD, OpenBSD ,FreeBSD, Inferno or even Linux."
> > I began using Linux around 1992. It is too easy to use and is now
> > pretty boring. I now prefer some of the others on the list.
> >
> > The reality is that nowdays, there is a range of operating systems now
> > ( NT, 2000Pro , 2000Server , 2000 Advanced Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
> > Inferno or even Linux that routinely whip OS/2's ass.
>
> You are obviously an idiot. NT, 2000Pro, 2000Server, 2000Advanced
> Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux do not whip OS/2 ass in any way
> whatsoever, really. The MS choices are only better in better
> compatibility with 2000 client (surprise) and SW/HW support, Linux and
> the BSD's are better in stability only. NetBSD and Linux have been
> ported to more platforms. All the MS OS's are among the worst server
> OS's on the market. OS/2 has a better GUI than any of the above by
> far. OS/2 can multitask and multithread better than any OS on the
> list. OS/2 is faster and manages resources better than any OS on the
> list. OS/2 is more secure than any OS on the list except maybe Open
> BSD. All of the BSD's and Linux are excellent OS's but OS/2 is
> better.
>
> I have never heard of Inferno.
>
> Face it,
> > operating system theory and practice have come a long way since OS/2.
>
> You are an idiot. All of the BSD's and Linux are based on technology
> from the mid-70's to the mid-to-late 80's. NT is from the same
> time-frame as OS/2. OS/2 is based on technology from the late 80's to
> the mid-90's. OS/2 is one of the most modern OS's on the market today.
>
> Never heard of Inferno.
> >
>>>deleted
well, until about 12 month ago I myself used nearly exclusivly OS/2.
You are right in several aspects, but wrong on certain others.
While it's true that ALL windows versions suck (and badly at that)
OS/2 is no longer really better than linux. I loved OS/2 for its stability
and the WPS (the windows GUI is a VERY BAD joke compared to the WPS)
but linux makes great strides in this regard. And already linux is better
than OS/2 at emulating the win-environment to exec win-progs.
So you have both wordls really (although i don't need it that often)
BUT (and a very big BUT):
who told you to go out and tell people you don't even know that they are
all idiots? Didn't your mother tell you to behave when you were slightly
smaller than now? People who do that tell all the world who the REAL
idiot is ( and in this group most of them are the win-loosers. I hate to see
someone intelligent enough to still use OS/2 to behave in this manner)
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:09:52 GMT
Here's an idea, READ THE POST.
The part you "snipped out" was referring to a PROBLEM someone was having
with updating their SuSE Linux with the latest software.
The suggestion to a perfectly VALID PROBLEM about updating components in
Linux was "get a new one" response. Except they are using SuSE and SuSE 7
is NOT available by means of downloading, you have to get the CD/DVD pack,
and that COSTS MONEY.
SuSE distributes an "eval" version which doesn't provide full functionality
(well, actually it does, but it's not for a permanent Linux installation).
This is the same crap you Linux zealots were yelling at Microsoft for; doing
some "minor changes" and charging for a new release. Oh look, it's not so
bad when your precious Linux company does it.
Hypocrite.
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:928fot$186$01$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > SuSE 7 is not available in the typical sense.
> >
> > There is an evaluation version ONLY. All other upgrades performed must
be
> > done manually. 7.0 is available as an EVAL version ISO image which
> > functions exclusively off the CDROM and uses an FS image file on a FAT
> > volume to accomidate "changes".
> >
> > If this person want's 7, he has to BUY IT.
> >
> > Well, there goes another "Linux is Free" advantage.
> >
> Sure, you expect to write to SuSe and tell them, "hey, send me
> your 6 CD's and 1 DVD, your handbook of 640 pages, several
> other books et al" and you won't pay a dime!
> Youre for sure a windows looser, no one else would show so low
> intelligence for all the world to see.
> You still have not got the message that SuSe (or RedHat, Mandrake etc)
> CAN un SHOULD charge money (for the CD'S (they cost money to manufacture)
> for the books (they aren't cheap)). Well, SuSE 7 Pro costs less than 60
> Dollars. Compre that to the windows prices and then come back to us
>
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:15:52 GMT
[snips]
"Randy Galbraith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:920kcv$10gl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> DefaultUser,
> What you say is true, Linux can be a real challenge to install and
> configure. My experience is that it is getting easier with each new
release
> (I've only installed RedHat, so I can't speak to other releases). I think
> people with a Windows (or worse Mac) background are going to be surprised
> (and obviously frustrated) by this. However, is ease of install the most
> important quality of an operating system?
No, but ease of installation and ease of modification - eg adding new
hardware later on - often go hand-in-hand.
> This is where the Windows rub
> really comes in, since most users of Windows have it pre-installed for
them,
Except that for many devices (sound cards, network cards, video cards, etc,
etc, etc) it is usually the at least semi-clueful who are installing the
devices. Anyone can plug in a printer, but it takes a little more skill to
get an internal card mounted properly. (Not much more, perhaps, but the
real novices don't generally even contemplate opening their boxes.) Such a
person can, I think, be expected to have at least some idea of installing
drivers and the like. It's a hell of a lot easier first to find drivers,
then to install them, under Windows than under Linux, as a rule.
> If you substitute a different OS everywhere you said Linux, you'll see my
> point, as in....
As in "I just dropped a new video card into my Mac, and with the provided
driver CD, installation was a complete snap"?
> "I just bought the open source version of IBM's OS/390,
> installed it on my laptop and couldn't get the mouse to work, therefore
> OS/390 must suck!"
If it were a single device, a single incident, the conclusion would be
ridiculous. It's not, though, generally a single device. Let's see:
1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
2) SB Platinum Live! 5.1 - sort-of supported, but with limited
functionality.
3) Matrox G400 dualhead. Semi-supported.
4) DVD: supported as a data drive only. Forget video, apparently.
5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
6) MS optical USB wheel mouse... semi-supported. Drops out regularly.
7) USB webcam unsupported.
8) IBM extended functionality keyboard... semi-supported.
9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional without
significant customization.
Now, compare that to, say, WinME, which detected and supported all those
devices. In some cases it required extra drivers/apps in order to get full
functionality, but they were provided with the hardware, and at the very
least I could actually install the OS because, unlike Linux, it actually
admitted my hard drives existed.
> Windows treats you like a baby and tries to spoon feed
> you everything you need. In contrast Linux treats you like an adult, and
as
> such demands more of you, but at the same time, it gives more as well.
Such as?
As it stands now, my hardware, under Linux, is at best semi-functional.
With XFree86, I have the option of using an older version which supports 3D
acceleration, or a newer version which doesn't, but does support other
features of my video card. Unlike Windows, which supports all the features.
Under Linux, I have, as far as I can tell, no support for playing DVD movies
at all, let alone over the Matrox's second video connector - which I have
under Windows. The SB Live!'s remote center seems to be completely
unsupported, even by Creative. Oh, they do have some Linux drivers - in
beta - but apparently not even beta drivers for the platinum or the remote
center.
Is Linux more stable? Probably. Does it consume fewer resources?
Probably. Does it allow heavier customization? Probably. As a user, do I
care? No; I want to _use_ my machine. I have the machine to let me run
applications to perform tasks; I do not have the machine for the prime
purpose of catering to it's particular whims. Two of us spent about 15
hours setting up Linux, and it still only half worked; one of us spent less
than an hour setting up Windows, and it worked just fine. Those 14 extra
hours under Linux bought nothing, and are 14 hours I _could_ have spent
doing real work, playing games, reading news, or whatever suits my fancy;
those hours were a net reduction in my use of the machine.
If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great. If your
goal in life is to make the machine as invisible as possible, so that you
can simply do what you want to do, Linux does not seem to be the ideal way
to go. In much the same way I don't want to rebuild an engine just to drive
to the store, I don't want to rebuild a kernel just to run my word
processor; the very notion is ridiculous. Maybe that's what the Linux
community considers the "adult" approach to software, but some of us have
better things to do with our lives.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:25:55 +0100
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Here's an idea, READ THE POST.
>
> The part you "snipped out" was referring to a PROBLEM someone was having
> with updating their SuSE Linux with the latest software.
>
> The suggestion to a perfectly VALID PROBLEM about updating components in
> Linux was "get a new one" response. Except they are using SuSE and SuSE 7
> is NOT available by means of downloading, you have to get the CD/DVD pack,
> and that COSTS MONEY.
>
> SuSE distributes an "eval" version which doesn't provide full
> functionality (well, actually it does, but it's not for a permanent Linux
> installation).
>
> This is the same crap you Linux zealots were yelling at Microsoft for;
> doing
> some "minor changes" and charging for a new release. Oh look, it's not so
> bad when your precious Linux company does it.
>
> Hypocrite.
>
>
I DID read the post. The original post was just that, crap.
And in addition, if you already have a SuSe system, you CAN
get the update disks for even less money (in Germany for about
35 - 40 Dollars). Don't come and tell me that you want to
download that much (I myself have a DSL line and would
consider even the idea completely insane to download that much).
So cime back with a better construed "linux-problem".
I don't believe a single word of the original post.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:41:26 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
> > First accounted by himem.sys (a DOS driver, try removing it!)
>
> However, Schulman proves through the version numbers returned by the memory
> managers that Windows replaces himem.sys.
>
> > > Filesystem: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
> > Not entirely true, the DOS driver links DOS and Windows ifshlp.sys. (Try
> > removing it!)
> > It is the installable file system helper.
>
> This allows DOS programs to use Windows filesystems, such as network shares
> or 32 bit cdrom drivers.
>
> > So, but this definition, DesqView/QEMM and Java are operating operating
> > systems.
>
> Interesting that you say this, since your own definitions are contrary. You
> claim that DOS is the OS, yet you claim that anything that is not running
> "natively" cannot be the OS (such as MacOS X, the Win32 subsystem in NT, or
> mkLinux). Your very own definitions put DOS as a non-native OS run by the
> Windows 386 executive in a VM.
The statement (even with the typo "but" vs "by") is meant to prove that,
since the simple definition allows DesqView and Java to claim OS status,
something we know to be false, that we must reject the definition.
>
> In other words, by your own words, if DOS is an OS, so is Windows, since by
> your own definition, they both run exactly the same way.
not in the least.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:58:33 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:Xu_06.862967
> > > > As of right now There are no viruses that I know of for linux.
> > >
> > > Guess you've never heard of Bliss:
> > >
> > > http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/bliss/
> > >
> > > It's been around for a while. Not to mention that there have been
> > > virus-like things, such as the morris internet worm.
> > >
> > > > I've been using linux for five years and I have never heard of one.
> > >
> > > I guess ignorance, is Bliss.
> >
> > The thing you are missing is that most NT users must operate with OS
> > privileges which would allow a virus to spread
>
> That's not true. NT is perfectly capapble of being used in locked down way.
This is clearly not 100% true.
As I have said before:
Some Windows programs can not install for administrator and also put
their settings into a user's account. (You must know this if you use
NT.) They don't know how. So, these programs must be installed as the
user who will be using them. To do this, you must have the privileges
which would allow a virus to spread.
Some Windows programs assume system wide access to operate. To operate
these programs you must also have privileges which would allow a virus
to spread.
The answer is to not use Windows NT for these programs OR use NT in an
insecure way. Most users will choose to use NT in an insecure way.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:53:53 +0200
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:928fot$186$01$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > SuSE 7 is not available in the typical sense.
> >
> > There is an evaluation version ONLY. All other upgrades performed must
be
> > done manually. 7.0 is available as an EVAL version ISO image which
> > functions exclusively off the CDROM and uses an FS image file on a FAT
> > volume to accomidate "changes".
> >
> > If this person want's 7, he has to BUY IT.
> >
> > Well, there goes another "Linux is Free" advantage.
> >
> Sure, you expect to write to SuSe and tell them, "hey, send me
> your 6 CD's and 1 DVD, your handbook of 640 pages, several
> other books et al" and you won't pay a dime!
> Youre for sure a windows looser, no one else would show so low
> intelligence for all the world to see.
> You still have not got the message that SuSe (or RedHat, Mandrake etc)
> CAN un SHOULD charge money (for the CD'S (they cost money to manufacture)
> for the books (they aren't cheap)). Well, SuSE 7 Pro costs less than 60
> Dollars. Compre that to the windows prices and then come back to us
I got RedHat 7, all 4 CDs of it, from LinuxIso.org
Didn't cost me a penny.
Why can't I do the same for SuSe 7?
I don't want the CDs, nor do I want the DVD or the handbook or anything
else.
I got SuSe 6.4 of the internet, just like I got any other Linux dist except
my first.
Why is this changed suddenly?
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:05:04 GMT
[snips]
"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?
Win2K _can_ work on bargain basement hardware. However, whether it's Linux,
Win2K, Solaris, or whatever, ask yourself this: if you want a stable,
reliable machine, say a server, that you can _rely_ upon to remain up, do
you crap together whatever old junk you have lying about, or do you build it
on a foundation of quality components? You _could_ use that flaky old 1.6Gb
drive that you sometimes get read errors from, or you could use a slightly
newer 4Gb drive that doesn't give read errors - which will be more reliable?
> > Next, don't go loading any old piece of software, just the applications
you
> > need for the task at hand. 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 until you are satisfied that
they
> > are not going to hose things up.
> >
> > Third put it into a machine room environment with protected power
adequate
> > cooling etc. All the sort of amenties you expect for proper IT
environment.
>
>
> These reasons for getting stability are exactly why no self respecting
> admin should use Win2K.
Let's recap:
1) Don't use unproven drivers.
2) Don't load your machine down with irrelevant crap.
3) Don't use crap hardware.
Yes, indeed. The are arguments against using Win2K. And against using
Linux, and against using MacOS, and against... hmm... no, they're arguments
_for_ using the bare minimum shred of sanity when approaching system design
for a stable setup - regardless of platform.
> 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?
No. But why have 500 things loaded, if you only actually need 50? Does it
benefit you in any way? Does it, in fact, do anything other than consume
resources?
> 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?
Very few manufacturers _can_ test their drivers under _every_ possible
configuration. And drivers are software; I've yet to encounter an actual
non-trivial bug-free piece of software. Use drivers which have been around
long enough to have been tested under a wide range of conditions and you're
much more likely to have a stable machine.
> That can get pretty expensive.
Expensive? Running older drivers with a higher degree of confidence is
expensive?
<some noise suggesting that Linux, Linux drivers, etc, are the magic
bug-free software deleted>
> Amazing the bullshit you put up with and the extra costs you absorb for
stability.
What extra costs? Let's see:
1) Reduced resource consumption, wihch potentially _lowers_ costs.
2) Drivers freely avaiable with the hardware, or from the hardware vendors.
3) Not installing extraneous software, reducing purchase and/or licensing
costs, if any.
Yes, indeed, *reducing* costs is *extra* costs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
