Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Charlie Ebert)
Linux 2.4 Major KICK ASS! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:01:11 GMT
In article <bdE76.28128$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Bagpuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:f_A76.271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > > Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
>> > > > operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
>> It's
>> > > > amazing.
>> > > > Here are some of the common failures:
>> > > Give me a break, do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit?
>> > > If you're going to lie, at least make it halfway believeable.
>> >
>> > By pointing out some flaws in windows you have kicked over
>> > a hornets nest! These blue nosed, humorless windoze zealots
>> > are not to be taken lightly!
>> >
>> > jjs
>> >
>
>What I said was completely correct.
>
>I subscribe to many mailing lists, read many support message boards,
>talk with many colleagues who support hundreds of Win2K installations
>on the desktop and I, myself, administer about a dozen or so Win2k
>installations.
>
>I can count the number of BSODs I've seen or heard of on one hand.
>For this idiot to come in here and say it crashes several times a day
>is absolutely rediculous. It's like saying that Linux crashes every
>day. Even I, a professed Linux hater, will say that that's absurd.
>
He's not an idiot and Windows does CRASH a couple of times a week
under heavy use if you don't turn your servers over every other
day.
If you have a Windows Server which manages to stay up for a week
at a time, chances are nobody's seriously using it for anything.
It's another expensive company nightlight.
>This Matt guy has fallen off his rocker, or he's just blatantly
>lying, which is more likely.
>
Nope. He's making a BSD sales pitch.
>-Chad
>
>
>>
>> Too right! I'm a newcomer to this group and the mentality amongst the
>> majority here is like a bunch of 12 year olds. It always appears to be a
>> case of "Well, this doesn't work in Win2k when I do this" and the reply is
>> always "You're a fscking idiot, it never happens to me so Win2k must be
>> excellent." Although the chances of the respondent having the same hardware
>> configuration and software configuration as the original poster are slim to
>> none.
>>
>> There are also Linux fanatics that are convinced that Linux is the best
>> thing since sliced bread; how it never crashes and anyone who crashes it
>> must be a complete idiot.
>>
>> Both groups are living in cloud cuckoo land. Every OS has it strong points
>> and its weaknesses. I might just have the situation in where I want to give
>> a toaster an OS (Linux), I might just have the situation where I want to
>> give an end luser an OS (Windows)
>> The world would be a boring place without variety.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't know what the purpose of this post is because it will make
>> bugger all difference to most of you.
>>
>> Oh, and just for the record I've had a stop error on Win2k Server from
>> minimizing an explorer window *and* I've had Linux lockup on me by just
>> starting X <shock horror>
>> I'm off to play with my BSD box...
>>
>> --
>> Bagpuss
>> Your friendly cloth cat (donning flame retardant catsuit)
>> Take the rubbish out before replying
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:03:08 GMT
In article <93obvc$od9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93o1ek$leb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:> Well.. it sure looks like lots of the old MS faces are leaving the ship.
>:> The shares are down from near 120 to under 50 in about one year... i think
>:> the dumping started long ago.
>
>: The shares will go back up. No matter what happens with the antitrust
>: trial, they will go up. If they're split, existing shareholders will get
>: shares in both companies, thus doubling their holdings. If they stay
>: together, then confidence will remain and shares will go back up. Either
>: way, this is a short term situation.
>
>
>If you really believe that, then you have a great opportunity to
>profit by putting your money where your mouth is.
>
EF has demonstrated his light cranium many a time here on COLA.
>I for one wouldn't touch Mafia$oft stock even if it were morally and
>ethically permissible for me to do so. Mafia$oft has never been good
>at anything except organized crime, and lately it hasn't even been
>very good at that. It's only a matter of time before the financial
>markets figure this out.
>
>
>Joe
If they split up Microsoft the stock will go up briefly then it
will start to fall as sales fall off.
They just can't MAKE the BUCK without a conspiracy.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:00:10 GMT
It had to happen eventually. And guess what? I prefer it on FreeBSD over
Linux.
But I don't need a data server in my life. (at least, not anymore).
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > I hate IIS. I prefer Netscape enterprise, err, Iplanet enterprise. It
> > comes with a great web based admin system that's ALWAYS up to date.
>
> I find myself in agreement with Kyle on this point.
>
> Good Lord, has really it come to that?
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:06:01 GMT
In article <Pp886.389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>That's an interesting point. Many times, the Windows drivers will enable
>accelerated or other functionality that the basic Linux drivers don't,
>causing them to use more power than they would otherwise and stressing the
>power supply more.
>
>
>
ALERT! ALERT ALL GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS WORLD WIDE!
LINUX STRAINS POWER SUPPLIES. LINUX WILL SHORTEN THE WORLDS
OIL SUPPLY AND CRAP OUT ALL POWER SUPPLIES!
DUMP LINUX ASAP!
I hope this finally clears up the FACT that Erik Fukenbush is
a total loonatic.
If this doesn't do it chances are VERY GOOD you need to see
a doctor.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:07:55 GMT
In article <MrK76.1164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
>interchangeable.
>>
>> What about Word98?
>
>Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different formats.
>
>
Funny but just 3 days ago you said that Word 2000 and Word 98 were compatible
formats. You said there were NO incompatible Word formats in this series.
Now this.
Again! How much proof from the MANS OWN WORDS do we need before we
just stamp "DUMBSHIT" across his forehead and cut this man loose.
Does anybody listen to this idiot?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:09:29 GMT
In article <93qebj$3it$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:93ppe9$1b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> 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.
>> > If so, the service pack *are* parts of the OS. Are you saying that
>> > parts of MSW are instable?
>>
>> Is Linux perfectly stable?
>
>Yes
>
As far as I'm concerned, LIKE A ROCK!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:13:12 GMT
In article <19L76.1172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <uGd76.288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:93in2m$adklg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >The Windows setup files are all 8.3 conformant. We were talking about
>> >> using
>> >> >a network card, not a modem.
>> >>
>> >> I thought we were talking about installing from the internet so both
>> >> netcards and modems are relevent here.
>> >
>> >As if installing Linux via modem is feasible.
>>
>> Funny you should ask this.
>>
>> Debian will install over a modem and I just did this 2 weeks
>> ago. I put potato on a rural PC on a farm for a farmer.
>>
>> The Debian install dials the phone, and the download takes
>> over night. If the phone line disconnects it redials
>> and apt-get restarts where it left off.
>>
>> It's totally hands free and it doesn't miss a single bit.
>
>Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were connecting at
>speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
>there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
>that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours. Even
>a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27 hours, or
>more than a day. Not "overnight".
>
Total Bullcrap EF. They do!
56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
And YES overnight. Believe it bad boy.
>Of course you're going to suggest that useable Linux systems can be had in
>100 Meg, and to that i'd say bullshit. Not for someone new to Linux it's
>not. You're going to have to install X, which is about 40MB download alone.
>You're going to have to install productivity software, likd StarOffice.
>Another 70 Megs or so, not to mention the base OS is going to take 10-20MB.
>Now, throw in a decen window manager, like KDE or GNOME, and you're well
>over 200MB's.
>
>
>Second,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux 2.4 Major KICK ASS!
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:16:39 GMT
In article <GR986.1825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Doesn't seem to be an issue, as NT has regularly beaten linux in all
>sorts
>> > > > of performance tests.
>> > >
>> > > Wrong again, wintroll -
>> > >
>> > > Check out the specweb 99 results for a heads up.
>> >
>> > Kernel based web server.
>>
>> Wrong again, wintroll -
>>
>> You are confusing khttpd with tux.
>
>Ok, what is khttpd then?
>
>Please post a URL of the specweb 99 results. The results I recall
>reading only had WinNT/IIS, Linux/Apache, and Linux/Tux.
>
>> > Not realistic. Who cares.
>>
>> Funny, I have this feeling that if it windows came out
>> on top, you'd be singing a different tune.
>
>Microsoft wouldn't write a hack httpd just to win a single
>benchmark and then claim they're the best web server around.
>
>They're content to write the best non-kernel web server and
>take the market by real-world performance.
>
>> Say, weren't you one of those who were gloating so
>> obnoxiously back in the days of the mindcraft fiasco?
>
>Hmm, two nics on a web server is a lot more real-world
>than a kernel-based web server.
>
>You could easily make a case for how a real business would
>use the Mindcraft configuration in their production web
>environment.
>
>You couldn't easily make a case for using a kernel http
>server.
>
>-Chad
>
>
And once again Chad you've been the PERFECT LINUX ADVERTIZIN!
Yes the 2.4 kernel does have a BUILT IN WEB SERVER and
it's going to absolutely BURY anything Microsoft does
as a KERNEL BASED WEB SERVER IS THE FASTEST THING IN
THE WORLD!!!! YES MAN!!!!
PRAISE GOD!!!
And Microsoft might actually come up with one in about
12 years time.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:18:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Russ Lyttle wrote:
>Shane Phelps wrote:
>>
>> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>> >
>> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > > > > > > > What about Word98?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
>> > > > > formats.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
>> > > > > > Not trolling, genuinely curious.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Well, most likely it's the endian issue, not to mention that things like
>> > > OLE
>> > > > > an structured storage are different between PC and MAC.
>> > > > >
>> > > > What does endian have to do with it? Changing endian on reading files
>> > > > between Intel and Motorola format takes at about 5 lines of code. I do
>> > > > that all the time.
>> > >
>> > > Word has traditionally stored binary data structures in it's file format.
>> > > This means that, unless you always convert endianness when loading and
>> > > unloading documents, the file formats (even if otherwise identical) will not
>> > > be the same for data content. More likely, Word only does endianness
>> > > conversion when using filters for a non-native file format.
>> > >
>> > > > > > IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
>> > > > > > of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call
>> > > them)
>> > > > > > capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
>> > > > > > have expected convergence in file formats.
>> > > > > > Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
>> > > > > > least as far as Excel 5.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Excel 5 for the PC uses BIFF format in a OLE structured storage compound
>> > > > > document. I'd be surprised if the native Mac excel version was the same
>> > > as
>> > > > > the PC version (especially given FPU differences between the
>> > > architectures).
>> > > >
>> > > > That still doesn't seem reasonable. The problem of converting between
>> > > > FPUs formats has been solved hundreds of times and doesn't require
>> > > > enough code to justify new file formats.
>> > >
>> > > Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a file,
>> > > read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the FPU.. see
>> > > if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the data for
>> > > your native file format? That makes no sense.
>> > >
>> > So massage the data. It isn't that difficult and can be done as the file
>> > is loaded. Either that or change the name and quit calling your Apple
>> > application Excel. If it is Excel and is *.xls, it should be readable by
>> > Excel everywhere. Or one of the products isn't Excel.
>> > The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
>> > couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
>> > Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> Russ, I think both you and Erik are wrong on this point.
>>
>> Excel was originally a Mac product (MS had, IIRC, Multiplan on the PC)
>> and was ported top Windows around Windows 2 or Windows 386. I remember
>> Excel for the PC shipping with its own copy of Windows way back when.
>> To a large extent, Windows was developed to boost sales of Excel.
>>
>> The version of Excel in Office 95 quite happily reads a simple spreadsheet
>> created in Excel 5 on a Mac, but makes a best-guess effort to determine the
>> equivalent font. Such experiments are just one of the reasons for
>> having 1
>> of each of the widely used systems around.
>> It is quite possible that
>> a) the file formats are different and convert on-the-fly
>> b) later versions are no longer cmpatible
>> c) some of the OLE features are incompatible
>>
>> I didn't (and won't) bother to do binary diffs of Windows and Mac excel
>> files to check the formats. I vaguely recall that MS published the Excel file
>> format (BIFF) ages ago, so it may still be available.
>>
>> There are lots of things to beat up on MS about, but this isn't one of them
>>
>> [ snip ]
>I'm really beating up on Erik for having an untenable position. It
>doesn't matter which came first, Mac or PC. Either the file formats are
>compatible or not. You can't claim Office is crossplatform, but has
>different file formats for each platform! I think, but don't know that
>cases b) and c) above are true.I claim that case "d) the file formats
>are the same but converted on the fly" should be true.
>--
>Russ
><http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
>Not powered by ActiveX
Be careful because BEATING on the SPECIAL PEOPLE is a criminal
offense in some states.
SPECIAL PEOPLE. He's SPECIAL.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:20:47 GMT
In article <RY986.1833$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:93ppe9$1b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >> 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.
>> > > > If so, the service pack *are* parts of the OS. Are you saying that
>> > > > parts of MSW are instable?
>> > >
>> > > Is Linux perfectly stable?
>> >
>> > Yes
>>
>> No.
>>
>> (But it is much more stable than Windows NT, in my experience)
>
>Then you don't know how to set up Windows NT properly. Linux has
>been far less stable in my experience and in the experience of several
>of my colleagues (who come from Unix backgrounds and prefer to stick
>with their Solaris and HP-UX boxes).
>
>-Chad
>
>
Well god knows you've had a ton of experience with this issue.
Hey, have you figured out what an HP-9000 is yet? How about
HP-UX. Remember last month you didn't know what these were.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:23:22 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't know why you're defending them on these grounds. This is the
> kind of conduct on their part that should be illegal, as they're trying
> to intimidate their users into forgoing all of their rights.
I'm not defending them, but making software liscensing illegal would make
the distribution of copywriten software (even by the SELLER) impossible.
The EULA is a "wordy" version of a "liscense" or "temporary permit" to use
someone elses (in this case, Microsoft's) intelectual proprty (unified
terminlogy for Copywritten content) Microsoft Office.
The activity of Microsoft custom defining a violation of the exclusive
rights IS a terrible little practice. But the more I read the newer EULA's,
the more I realize that scaring people with fake legal action on a truly
unenforcable policy is just a waste of the legal department's time (and they
NEED their legal department).
> This is not the only condition in their license that seems illegal --
> there's another provision which prevents second sale of OEM licensed
> software, and yet another that says that you can't get a refund on
> your Windows software unless you also return the hardware.
Manufacturers of Software do not refund for their software. None of them
do. If you purcashed a copy of Sun Microsystems StarOffice 5.1 from your
local CompUSA, Sun Microsystems will not be refunding your money (neither
will CompUSA, but I digress).
Microsoft will not refund ANY copy of Windows directly. If there is a media
problem, replacement CDROM's (version notwithstanding) can most likeley be
obtained from Microsoft for a nomial "fee". Provided you have a valid
liscense to use the software.
> Microsoft office is not "intellectual property". It's more correct to
> say that Microsoft hold the copyright on MS Office.
Intellectual property is a lay term for exclusive rights typically provided
to anything covered under USC Title 18 (Copyrights, & Trademarks, etc.)
Office is a product, created & owned by Microsoft, and is therefore their
intellectual property.
I know its a shitty business practice. But it's almost legal.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:23:39 GMT
How did you know?!!?!?
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:10:40
> >Of course, I should point out that Microsoft's EULA agreement is totally
> >outside the bounds of the rights provided them by USC Title 18...
> >
> >Therefore, making the EULA unenforceable notwithstanding it's own
> >provisions.
> >
> >Hence, Microsoft has no control over what you do with their software, so
> >long as your actions are within the confines of the companies exclusive
> >rights toward the intellectual property that IS Microsoft Office.
>
> Well, gee, that's not the take I think anyone expected from you, Kyle.
> Are you a libertarian, by any chance?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: 14 Jan 2001 05:46:30 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<XX886.63463$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 13 Jan
2001
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93p425$d4r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> <N_P76.55259$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 12
>> <Jan
>> 2001
>>
>
>> >Same with RH7, GPM is configured by Anaconda, XFree86 is configured
>> >FROM GPM (typically by Anaconda).
>>
>> And? It still detected my Logitec Wheel mouse. And it works fine in X.
>
>Yes, but X doesn't do this. Not all distro's use GPM or gorgous
>installers to work. Leaving backported USB functionality useless.
>Leaving USB devices useless.
Ok so get a better distro than what you're using. Just update your kernel.
>> >> again, it identified my Matrox fine... didn't auto detect the 3D
>> >> labs card, but I tossed in a cheap STB got the drivers then
>> >> installed it. Fine.
>> >
>> >This is NOT a soulition.
>>
>> What's not? Installing a driver is not a solution? That sounds pretty
>> ass backwards. sounds exactly like a solution. Something that solved
>> the problem of the video card not displaying viideo.
>
>You didn't just "install a driver", you got another card. NOT A
>SOULITION.
No. I already had the STB. I put the STB back in, autodetected fine. Now
with the STB in loaded netscape, went out found the drivers for the 3Dlabs,
loaded them in, and reinstalled the 3dlabs. Taking out the STB, so yes I
DID install a driver.
>> >Because you like your piddling minutia, overcomplication and wasted
>> >time.
>>
>> No it's not. It's control. I don't have shit installed on my system I
>don't
>> want. It's all this integration and not asking permision that allows
>> for the existence of shit like the I Love You VBS virus, or the
>> various Macro viruses in windows. You'll please notice that those
>> viruses don't affect Linux. You have to write something a little more
>> complicated than a glorified batch file. And then if I choose to run a
>> script without reading it frist, shame on me. So I say the time spent
>> fixing the follow up to stupid viruses is more of a waste of time than
>> me answers yes or no at the least for everything. *I* am the decision
>> maker, the computer is a slave.
>
>Oh yes, the old "integration causes instability". Virus's will happen,
>period. If Linux becomes popular,
If? I think you missed the boat on this one.
--clipped--
>*You* being the decition maker is a joke. You work for your system
>under Linux. Linux does NOT conform very well to the whim of the user
>at the drop of a hat.
No it's not a joke. Linux is a VERY customizable OS. Down the the fucking
kernel. I pick and choose what I want. I'd like to see you recompile the
kernel on Windows when ya want, cause you decide that you don't need
everything Microsoft decided you needed. You don't. NO Linux is not easy.
It's not for everybody. Nor should it be. Use Windows if you don't want to
learn about computers or put forth any effort. Any fuckin idiot can use
windows for the most part. The majot problem I have with Windows, besides
it's general suckyness. (I like that word), is it's owned by MS, who helped
cause the demise of another great os OS/2 Warp.. :) now that was a great
Desktop OS, but I'm sure you would hate it also.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
