Linux-Advocacy Digest #294, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Exceptions! (WAS: Re: Global Configuration tool) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("MH")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("MH")
Re: auto run ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Jure Sah)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Jure Sah)
Re: Windows fails again (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful (Form@C)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why NT? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Exceptions! (WAS: Re: Global Configuration tool)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 15:40:22 +0200
"Jure Sah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > > Peter Hayes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:23:31 +0100, Jure Sah
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Peter Hayes wrote:
> > > > > > I have a machine with 'ME on it that won't complete the boot
process until
> > > > > > I hit the eject button on the CD drive. No CD needed, just eject
the tray
> > > > > > and push it back. Maybe not exactly a "crash" but the next best
thing....
> >
> > It's a laptop, built by Gateway, and the drive is the combined CD /
floppy
> > popular with various laptop builders.
> >
> > Boots fine if the CD / floppy package is removed from the computer.
> >
> > Weird :-)
>
> I'd guess there is the problem: You know what's the startup procedure
> for checking a floppy drive? I guess the MS guys wrote some separate
> procedures. Then when the computer is checking if there is anything in
> the floppy/CD drive, it's also waiting for the CD drive to return "NO
> CD" and that happens only when you push the tray back in!
>
> Did you try to remove that floppy/CD package from the "bootables" list
> or moving your hard disk on the top of the list?
>
> Gosh, if I was programing this windows thing, I'd probably go insane! So
> many details: one specific option on one specific system with one
> specific equipment and you get an error!
>
> Hehe, another unimportant detailed exception, that's making your life
> worse, eh? =] =]
You can turn it off, IIRC.
The checking of floppy on windows startup.
It's somewhere in system propeties> <last tab, can't recall its name> >file
system
If the problem is with the bootables list, then it's a BIOS thing, not an OS
one.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:47:29 -0500
> Boy, way to totally miss the "big picture".
>
> The problems this person is having are truly "issues" under the Mandrake
7.2
> install. By reading this post, it looks clear that "flatfish++++" went
> totally out of their way to find faults WITH the installer, but the issue
> remains.
flatfish is an expert linux-zealot-chain-yanker.
have to give credit where credit is due (=
> Instead of poking holes in the minor details in the analysis (which by my
> experience with Mandrake 7.2 is somewhat accurate) why isn't there an
> outrage to correct the dumb mistakes IN the system?
Yikes! Ever try red hat 7? Makes buttcake 7.2 look like winME
> Because it's "free"?
I would imagine this to be the hidden crux of their reasoning.
Don't hold your breath waiting for it though.
> Bad answer.
Yep. Sure is. Unless you really have very limited funds, and build your own
pc from discarded parts.
But I'll bet you better than 3/4 of these linux zealots are running > 400mhz
pc's with newer hardware.
You almost have to in order to see any snap in the newer desktops.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:50:09 -0500
> You have to understand that "UNIX Engineers" like Mr. Kulkis would be out
of
> a job if people believed that Windows 2000 was an improvement over Windows
> NT 4.
Wow. You mean you haven't banished that bozo to the bit-bucket yet?
Took me all of a week to kill that noise once and for all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: auto run
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:21:48 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
>> > What the fuck is autorun?
>>
>> Lets look at the word more closely shall we...
>> First, lets split it in two...
>> Auto... Short for automatic. To do something without manual intrervention.
>> Run... To start a program...
>>
>> So to autorun a program means to start a program auotomatically...
>> </sarcasm>
>> Can we say Duuuuh???
> Close, but no ceeegar. Auto = self.
> Therefore, Auto+Run = SELF+running program.
Then why ask the stupid question in the first place??? Eh???
Oh, and I noticed you totally ignored the rest of my posting...
So I'll repeat it as you seem to be incredibly thick. It might sink in this
time...
>> Oh... And for a unix system enginner, don't you think you should KNOW about
>> such things a sig file size limits???
>>
>> Mine's a couple of lines too long, but you're taking the piss with that one!
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
==============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:54:14 +0100
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Let's start with the Mandrake install process, which seems to have a
> > mind of it's own. Feed it an "expert" parameter, which is supposed to
> > prevent hardware detection, and it still tries to detect hardware.
>
> Wow, windows doesnt even give you THAT option.
Another user that doesn't see the similarities between "Expert" and
"Advanced".
> > It never prompts me to make a boot/rescue disk
>
> It does for me, every time. You are either lying or doing something
> wrong.
?!?! No f**k! You know windows works perfectly on my comp., but I still
don't claim that everybody else is lying (or doing something wrong)!
T.i. of course if you don't consider having a non-standard computer as
"doing something wrong". I could expect something like that from a
cube-brain like you!
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
For those interested in a theory of how to make AI:
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind2.html (updated: 01.02.01)
4E6F746369656420746865204845582D41534349493F
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:25:12 +0100
Let's say I'm a person who is looking for an OS that linux claims to
be...
"." wrote:
> Yes, all scattered about in both /etc and the documentation. It takes
> less than a minute to set it all up.
> Not everyone is using the same hardware as you.
> It depends on the program, but you can get them to be anywhere you like
> if you read the documentation.
> Apparantly youve never read the documentation.
> Thats not an enlightenment thing. Read the documentation.
> Read the documentation. To wit:
> You can alias that if you want. Hell, you can make a cute button for
> your desktop out of it too if you like. Read the documentation.
> It does. Read the documentation.
> Read the documentation.
> Thats an enlightenment feature. Read the documentation.
> Its in the documentation. Read it.
> And besides that, theres an assload of wine documentation on the web.
> Look it up.
> You didnt read the documentation. Wine does not work with W2K binaries.
> You arent running samba. Read the documentation.
> Then you're an idiot. Its not that difficult, and you doubtlessly
> didnt read the documentation.
> I didnt. You did it wrong, and didnt read the documentation.
> You simply do not, and do not WANT to understand linux. Either that
> or you are retarded.
> Eterm -bg black -fg white +sb -s 10000 -F sabvga &
This linux thing seems like an operating system that is trying to oppose
the user at any cost. Or maybe a non-functional DOS version -122.3, with
a Bible of documentation that tries to teach the user how to communicate
to the OS in machine language!
Linux sux to me already, and I was only listening to a person who likes
it!
Say how do you connect to network from linux? Something like: "Jhwers
-tr fj3h42 -ij fsd76234h +dc -u 748738967 -E fdgbazidurks Éôë¤" ?! Yuck!
Even DOS command lines looked a lot better than that!
Sure linux is stable; Only because the user can never get to all the
advanced programs that control anything important!
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
For those interested in a theory of how to make AI:
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind2.html (updated: 01.02.01)
4E6F746369656420746865204845582D41534349493F
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:29:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:31:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >What version, Windows 286?
> >
> >
> >JM wrote:
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Actually about 6 months ago there was a post in the Linux setup groups
> that described this one chap's 6 month "love affair" with Linux trying
> to connect to the internet. Seemed his ISP was not Linux friendly (and
> which one is?) and he wouldn't give up. Imagine paying for 6 months of
> access and not being able to use it?
>
> Damm these LinoScrews are a stupid lot....
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
The last linux unfrindly ISP I encountered only took me about 15 minutes to crack. The
MS software that tries to keep out Linux
isn't that smart.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:50:15 GMT
I don't see Windows 2000 (nor NT) listed on your resume. Therefore you
have no experience on any enterprise class software from Microsoft and
are unable to have a credible first hand opinion regarding such. I
understand your frustration with Microsoft's consumer level operating
systems, especially if you are attempting to run third party enterprise
class software on a consumer level operating system.
Try Windows 2000 SP1 and just see if you don't see real significant
stability that you are not accustom to from the Microsoft operating
systems you have listed. (Then share specifics on your experience.)
Admit no operating system is perfect and there is an element of
jealously for Microsoft since they are the defacto for most living human
beings on planet Earth.
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I just wanted to confirm that all Linux bigots have their head in ground
> > and put down alternatives without ever even trying them.
>
> I have used
>
> IBM 370 running VM/CMS
> Apple ][
> Apple ][+
> Apple //e
> MacOS (various versions on various hardware)
> TRS-80
> TRS-80 Model III
> Commodore 64
> RSTS (on DEC PDP-11)
> PROCSY (on Control Data CDC 6600 and 6700)
> AS/400
> v7 Unix (on DEC PDP-11)
> 3.x BSD (on DEC PDP-11
> 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 BSD (on DEC VAX-11 and dual VAX-11)
> 4.3 BSD Tahoe (on CCI-32)
> Unix SysV R3 (on Data General and 3B2)
> G/UX (on Gould Powernode 9080 and Gould NP-1)
> pt/x (On various Sequent machines)
> AIX 3.x (on IBM RS/6000)
> IRIX 5.x and 6.x (on SGI)
> HP-UX 9.x, 10.x and 11.x (on HP-9000)
> SunOS (Sun III and Sun IV)
> Solaris (Sun Sparc)
> Linux (1.2 on Cyrix 586/200+; 2.2 on AMD K52/500)
> MS-DOS 5.x, 6.x, 7.x
> LoseDOS 3.1, 3.11, Lose95 and Lose98
> Unnamed Monitor written by Purdue University Electrical Engineering [which
> we had to re-create by the end of the course]
> (on Prompt 80 -- Intel 8080 development box)
> unnamed Unix-like system written by Purdue University Electrical
> Engineering [which we had to re-create by the end of
> the course] (on generic Motorola 6809 development box).
>
> Of ALL of these systems the satisfaction:system-hardware ratio
> has been the absolute WORST on Microsoft systems.
>
> > Those that are
> > respectfully prudent would at least try something before they knock it.
> >
> > Aaron, contrary to your assumptions, I have probably used more versions
> > of Unix/Linux than yourself (especially since you sound so immature).
> > The point regarding Redhat 7.0 vs. W2K SP1 is to compare the latest and
> > greatest on each side.
>
> Ooooooooh really. Read my list above, and see
>
> >
> > BTW, how productive are you on your 70's hardware? You appear extremely
> > marketable.
>
> I'm productive on ANY hardware, provided the OS (or monitor, as the
> case may be) is decent.
>
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Honestly, have any of you really fairly tested Windows 2000
> > >
> > > Why would I do that?
> > >
> > > > with service pack 1?
> > >
> > > What's with the service pack?
> > >
> > > you loseDOS morons were telling us 6-months ago that it was perfect.
> > >
> > > What's up with that?
> > >
> > > > How about Windows 2000 DataCenter?
> > >
> > > As if I really have an interest on blowing a bunch of $$$$$ on useless
> > > Microshaft garbage.
> > >
> > > > It seems no one here would
> > > > even give W2k the time of day (or money) to really try it out to
> > > > determine how true these statements are.
> > >
> > > Microsoft has a 25-year track record of selling shit and claiming
> > > that it's perfume. Why should I, or anybody else, trust them?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If so, specifically what was unstable? And don't say "Well on home built
> > > > computer with hardware from
> > > > the 70's..."
> > >
> > > How about...not even programmed as well as home-built systems from the 1970's.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My RedHat 7.0 is far, far from ideal....
> > >
> > > Anything x.0 is far, far from ideal, you fool
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Perry Pip wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:49:11 +0100,
> > > > > SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Nigel Feltham wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On the other hand if anyone is desparate to get the new kernel they can
>get
> > > > > >> the latest test release to use from www.kernel.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Good point.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And even in a beta state, it's more stable than any MS OS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > >
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:56:02 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<5zC56.14692$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Colin R. Day wrote:
>
>> > Oh, and on the subject of GUIs, why do the pop-ups on most Linux GUI
>> > software assume that the user's screen resolution is at least
>> > 1024x768 (and sometimes even greater than that)? Don't Linux/unix
>> > users ever use the standard, basic 640x480 graphics mode? Are the
>> > applications too dim to ask
>>
>> And what is standard about 640x480? Or is just standard because
>> Microsoft says it's standard?
>
There is *no* "standard" screen resolution. 640x480 just happened to be the
maximum graphics resolution mode for the early VGA (not SVGA - that came
later) cards. It was made that size to fit nicely onto 12 inch colour
monitors. It was *far* better than the CGA and EGA cards which were
available up to that time. With time it has become the accepted minimum
graphics resolution which the user is likely to use.
>I thought the 640x480 screensize was fading as more and more PC's
>support 1024x768 nowadays.
>
Fading but not gone nor forgotten! Many notebook & laptop screens currently
in use won't go higher than 640x480 (newer ones may be better, but I
daren't even look at the prices!). PDA screens won't even reach *that* yet!
>Still, bring back the 1280x1024 screen... though I'm not sure my desk
>would support the weight... or my bank balance the cost if it was an LCD
>version 8).
>
It's a sad and expensive world isn't it? I daren't upgrade to a 17" monitor
yet (like you, desk not strong enough!). IMHO that is the smallest size
needed to use 1280x1024 (that's the combination I'm currently using at
work).
LCDs ** d r e a m ,,,, **
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:01:38 GMT
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:48:40 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mandrake 7.2 was certainly a big winner for me.
To each his own. Coming back to Win2000 after using Linux for a few
days is like returning to my Impala SS after driving a Ford Taurus
rental car for a couple of days.
>My Logitech Wheel mouse works fine.
Logitech Model M-Ba47 (on the bottom decal). Others in the Mandrake
group have the exact same problem. Why do I have to select MS
Intellimouse instead of Logitech? And why does it get identified as
Unknown when there is a Logitech selection? And why does it die
completely when Logitech is selected?
Piss poor..
>Then install ppp afterwards? Even I managed to figure that one out!
So did I, but a new user isn't going to even know what ppp is and will
be installing and de-installing his modem over and over again.
>
>Funny, my system is set to Logitech mouse and it works just fine.
Same model as mine?
>> Speaking of fonts, Mandrake includes a nifty tool to find all of your
>> Windows fonts and and make them available to Linux. It finds them all
>> right but they don't appear as selections in any programs including
>> DrakFont if you launch it a second time after adding them.
>
>Fonts worked for me.
I don't see them in the list although DrakFontmanager does find them
and add them.
>> On to Enlightenment which seems unable to even save the settings of an
>> Eterm. Change the font, save current settings close, relaunch and it
>> goes back to default every time. This is with root or user access and
>> does not matter.
>
>Try a different terminal then.
Why doesn't ETerm work?
>> How about the Wheel mouse which sometimes works and other times
>> doesn't? Usually opening and closing Netscape or whatever the
>> offending application happens to be at the moment, makes it work again
>> until the next time it doesn't work again.
>
>Again, I don't see these problems.
See Mandrake group. Others have exact same problem.
>
>> How about no sound out of the digital port on the SBLive card?
>
>My sound still is supported.
Half supported. No digital outs.
>> Why doesn't Knode remember it's settings like Window size?
>
>It does if you tell it to. Settings -> Save Options seems to work.
Ok.. Other programs remember window size on their own under
Enlightenment (after setting it in the remember settings menu).
>> Why does Mandrake insist on changing my mouse settings every time it
>> boots up? I had to turn off hardware detection for that one.
>
>Not noticed that one.
Set it to intellimouse. Reboot it's back to a wheel-less unknown
mouse.
>
>I got my remote machine to work just fine. It does take a bit of editing of
>the configuration file.
My printer is on the Windows machine running Win2k. No amount of
screwing around has made this work.
Add network printer->browse_>click and it is done under Win2k.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:09:03 GMT
I am not familiar with your specific SMB problem although would expect
Samba to correct the problem so to advertise W2K compatibility.
Difficult to reply to your genuine question without knowing more about
your environment. What are your business needs? What do you use NT for
now? What is your workstation base like?
Shane Phelps wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Try Windows 2000
> >
>
> There are some valid reasons for using Windows NT Server.
> Unfortunately W2K breaks some of these (SMB changes cripple Samba,
> RDP changes break rdesktop). I have been led to believe there are
> compatibilty problems in other areas as well, but don't have
> first-hand experience.
>
> What advantages does W2K (NT 5) Server have over NT 4 which makes
> it such a big advance? It seems to be six of one and half a dozen
> of the other to me, leaving aside the problems mentioned above.
> This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, so provide a
> considered response please.
>
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> > > why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
> > >
> > > I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
> > > deploy NT.
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:09:22 GMT
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:11:23 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>
>Tell me please, how do I get KDE2 on windows?
Why in the world would you want to?
Inconsistent and buggy.
>Linux "hit the net" from day one (for linux anyway) it was M$ who was ignoring
>the net in 1991.
And Linux has only recently been able to automate the connection
process so the user doesn't have to screw with ppp-options files, chat
scripts and so for. MS was a little slow out of the gate, but
surpassed Linux in the ease of use step in one leap. Linux is STILL
trying to catch up in that regard.
Offline news and a decent web browser are 2 area's where Linux falls
flat on it's face.
>Hm, I use linux daily, I sometimes have to use windows at a clients, I know
>which I prefer, and the for what. The only thing windows does better for me is
>some games.
To each his own and that is what choice is about.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
