Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows Stability (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windows 2000 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows Stability (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:43:46 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:50:06 GMT, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik fukenbush is not an intelligent man.
I think you're mistaken. Erik seems to be quite intelligent to me.
>He's just an asshole.
More of a pedant and hair-splitter. Like Microsoft Marketing, he is
good at creating an impression without actually saying what the casual
listener might think he said.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:00:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:57:03 GMT
<3A886.63445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ah, because just leaving them on = perfect computing. Right?
>
>Or does doing nothing with them all day = perfect computng, right?
Yep, you're right, we should all install Windows Me on all of
our computers, turn them off to conserve power, and behave like
good little people and kowtow to the God of Redmond.
Spot The Flaw. (Hint: computer equipment -- especially disk drive --
lasts longer if continuously powered.)
>
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
>> <3uR66.27155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
>> >actually sleep.
>> >
>> >Why? Because their human.
>>
>> So am I, and I leave my two machines on 24/7. I've had very
>> few problems with them after I did that.
>>
>> Of course, it helps that they're in an adjacent room :-).
>>
>> [rest snipped]
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random fan whirr here
>> EAC code #191 2d:09h:57m actually running Linux.
>> All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:06h:07m actually running Linux.
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:07:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:06:32 -0600
<7Nq66.441$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:a3o66.161894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The Register: MS anti-trust appeal looms
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15891.html
>>
>> This case appears to just run and run.
>>
>> Why is it taking so long for the US Courts to come to any conclusion in
>> this case? I mean, Microsoft have been found guilty of being a monopoly,
>> yet they're happily continuing as before. So far there's no teeth to this
>> case.
>
>Appeals take time. The Appeals court has to sift through mounds and mounds
>of evidence before even the first words are uttered in argument.
And by that time .NET will be firmly and nearly irrevocably entrenched
in the corporate substructure, and Microsoft will win again, not
unlike OLE versus OpenDoc, and COM versus CORBA.
Sigh. At least Java's still out there, roundly trouncing ActiveX. :-)
Maybe it'll trounce .NET, too -- one can hope.
(Side point: a monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing; it's the
abuse of monopoly power that causes problems. I don't remember
whether the courts have determined Microsoft has, or not -- it's pretty
clear that Microsoft's been a bit shady, though, in some of its,
ahem, agreements -- if one can call an agreement something that is
functionally more like a "do this or else" sort of thing.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:06h:11m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:02:52 GMT
In article <91laut$1t0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I kept hearing Windows sys admins tell
> me that a properly setup server with
> Windows is as stable as any Unix server.
The only one who could actually make that type
of an assessment would be someone who had first-hand
experience and accountability for administration of
equally configured and equally loaded UNIX AND Windows NT
servers.
> Okay, for sake of argument, I'll accept that.
Don't, even Microsoft didn't. The fact is that Windows NT was NOT
as reliable as UNIX or Linux, and Microsoft knew it. They did
everything to prevent disclosures of formal studies, and focused
intense attention to preventing the race conditions and lock-outs
that plagued NT to make sure that Windows 2000 is more reliable.
There goal was to reach 60 days real MTBF with no routine maintainance. They
failed. However, they did improve Windows 2000 to just over 3 weeks between
failures without routine maintainance. This is nearly 3 times better than
Windows NT which cannot be trusted beyond 7 days without a reboot.
Keep in mind that the industry average MTBF for Linux is about 90 days, and
the industry average for Solaris is nearly 6 months. These are further
substantiated by reviews of the Netcraft "uptime" reports an hundreds of high
volume web sites.
Microsoft, Linux, and Solaris are able to create the illusion of a failure
free system by using redundant clusters, distributed processing, message
queuing, and serialized objects. This creates the illusion of higher
reliability, but the reality is that systems are being rebooted "behind the
scenes". In corporate sites and web sites with hundreds of servers, it's
pretty easy to get a good sense of availability.
> So the real question is, what constitutes a "properly setup"
> Windows server?
The requirements for the "99.999%" availability includes
SMP 4-way servers (since cooling fans fail which causes CPUs
to overhead, and RAID 1 disk arrays (since hard drives overhead
and go out of alignment due to thermal expansion). Furthermore,
you need two identical redundant servers redundantly connected
to an isolated Server Area Network on the back-end and
redundantly connected to a client network on the front-end.
In addition, you must follow a strict routine maintainance schedule
which includes frequent back-ups (in addition to the RAID), weekly
reboots staggered to map the system.
Furthermore, this availability only applies to ASPs which are connected to
SQL Server 2000 via IIS.
The joke of course is that the key to the redundancy being transparent is the
CISCO Routers, which are really UNIX machines. Hence, it isn't Windows 2000
that is reliable, it's the UNIX boxes feeding them that provide the
avaliability.
All of these qualifications of course make it clear that Windows 2000 is NOT
as reliable as Linux or Solaris, both of which run hundreds of applications
concurrently and go for months without single CPU failures. When one of the
servers does fail, the other machine can handle more of the load by merely
slowing down a bit. As a result, you can never exceed the load limits of a
single Win2K machine so you are effectively buying twice number of servers to
get availability.
Cost/Performance is further damaged by the necessity to split up the load
between front-end servers that run IIS and the ASP pages, and the SQL Server
back-ends. On Linux and UNIX, you can often run Apache and the appropriate
SQL database server on the same machine. Typically you assign effinity, but
you can balance the load.
> Clearly, it isn't that way when installed just out of the
> box. If that were there wouldn't be all of the problems that so many
> complain about. I've never been able to install it out
> of the box and have it be as stable as Unix.
> So I must be missing something. What is it?
Actually, you're not missing anything. Microsoft's Lawyers and Ad Writers go
to incredible lengths to stay just within the defensible limits of the law
(and many, including the FTC have disputed this at times). The ad copy and
press releases are deliberately misleading, but the "disclaimer paragraphs"
toward the very end of the article provide the legal loophole that keeps
Microsoft from being slapped with Fraud charges.
Go to most of Microsoft's "Fast Facts" pages. Microsoft puts up
dazzling headlines claiming that "They provide NASDAQ Quotes",
which is supposed to mean that they are relaiable - right?
Upon closer inspection, you discover that the real databases and trading
records are still stored on UNIX systems, and that Microsoft only does SQL
Server "Select Into" local SQL Server tables. The benefit to NASDAQ is that
the UNIX systems are insulated from the quote hungry peons. Furthermore,
these are the delayed quotes, so a delay of a few minutes is tolarable (you
can let your back-up engines serve stale quotes.
This would seem to be a very convenient niche. There's only one problem. To
get the reliability and availability, while serving this cache, you need
those 8 processors and 2*Xgig disks. The Data Center Edition licenses are
"per processor" and at $40,000 per processor, that's $240,000 in royalties to
Microsoft. Given that most of these sites are so overloaded that you need
4-5 of these clusters, the cost can easily reach $1 million in royalties.
That's the equivalent of 10 staff-years or 5 consultant-years.
But then you have to ask: "How much would it cost to do this on Linux with
PostGres or something similar? Since you are dealing with data that is
stored on reliable systems, and you only need to do the select into
occaisionally, you could easily use Linux to do the same work. And the
royalties for Linux and Postgres are almost nothing.
Both Microsoft and Linux vendors offer service contracts. Microsoft's
contract is 20% of that $1 million ($200,000/year) which does not include
automatic upgrades). Linux support contacts cost about the same price, about
$20,000 per processor per year, and you generally need fewer processors.
Royalties are only necessary if you are using something like DB2 on Red Hat.
Even then, the $1000/processor royalties are trivial compared to Windows NT.
> This would be good for all of those junior
> admins out there to know, as well
> as some of the senior admins.
If you are looking for reliability, there are no Junior
admins. Senior admins are very protective of the tools
required to manage and maintain farms of Win2K clusters.
Some hints though. Most of the same techniques used in
Linux and UNIX are used in Windows 2k. For example, you
use scripts, not GUIs.
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting/ for more details.
> So please tell us, those of you that know, what are the secrets?
How many nondisclosure agreements are you willing to sign?
> Adam Ruth
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:18:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, craig nellist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:31:37 +1100
<GVO66.52$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Are there file format converters available so that later versions of
>> Office programs can write files for earlier versions? If so, they are
>> late, and they suck.
>
>Yes, there are. They ship with the product - always have - and they work
>adequately enough.
>
>Out of the box, Word 2000 can write in these formats:
>
> Word 2000 (Document / Template)
Duh.
> HTML
Last time I looked at the output, it was total crap, liberally
littered with hardwired font specifications in the tags.
> RTF
As expected.
> TXT
Right.
> Word 2.x (Windows)
Dunno; haven't used it.
> Word 4, 5, 5.1 (Macintosh)
Dunno.
> Word 95 (Windows)
I converted a document to Word95, and it screwed up several things,
mostly on the diagrams. In particular, it can't seem to figure
out that splines are open.
Sigh.
> WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1 (DOS & Windows)
Dunno.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:07h:18m actually running Linux.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:29:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:30:34 GMT
<KX986.1832$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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?
>>
>> No OS is perfect, and they all have bugs, even Linux.
>
>There you have it.
Exactly.
Thank you for conceding the point that Linux is much more stable
than Windows. :-) Even if its stability is not perfect.
(Granted, individual user's mileage may vary, and el flako hardware
can take out even the most beautifully engineered software. NT
advocates have been arguing this for some time -- and it's quite true.
Bad drivers and loadable modules, too.)
>
>-Chad
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random power supply problems here
EAC code #191 3d:07h:35m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:32:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:14:43 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>tony roth wrote:
>>
>> hmm, like I've said before the only possible way to crash an nt4 sp6a
>> server is by administrative ignorance!
>>
>
>
>Then how come we don't see any NT4 boxes with 180 day uptimes?
A bug (feature?) in the uptime reporter cycles after 49.7 days
(2^32 milliseconds). Dunno if Netcraft has compensated for
this issue, or not.
(Linux has a similar cycle, but only after 497 days = 2^32 centiseconds.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:08h:37m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:34:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JM
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:03:48 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 08 Jan 2001 22:25:33 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:qwq66.162349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > Nigel Feltham wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > >> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows via the
>>> > > >> internet.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >But you need a machine on the internet to install it in the first
>>> place!
>>> > >
>>> > > You mean you cannot make a windows bootable disk to connect to the
>>> > > internet and start the installer then - this is possible under linux
>>> (some
>>> > > distro's still allow this - mandrake can install from an ftp site but
>>> may
>>> > > need the CD put in your own ftp server as I am not sure if their server
>>> > > has all files from the CD).
>>> >
>>> > Not as far as I know. The bootable disks supplied with CD's (if they are
>>> > even supplied at all) are just MSDOS. I don't think anything on the
>>> Windows
>>> > CD's allows this either.
>>> >
>>> > However, it is possible to get a network stack up on MSDOS, though I
>>> > haven't seen a TCP/IP one (that doesn't mean there aren't any).
>>>
>>> This is precisely how you'd do it. The software is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.simtel.net/simtel.net/msdos/tcpip.html
>
>>And where do I get real-mode drivers for my USB ethernet connection,
>>or any other ethernet card made in the last 5 years?
>>
>>No, you cannot install Windows over the net. I've *never* seen anyone
>>do it under Windows, but it happens with Linux all the time (and I've
>>seen considerable more people who've installed Windows than Linux).
>>
>>Net Ghost seems to be the closest thing, but that really is a disk
>>imager, not an OS installer.
>
>And anyway, where would you download Windows from legally?
An Enterprise Server set up on the local LAN, presumably.
Assuming it's possible at all -- I don't know, offhand.
(This is no different from Linux, except that Linux doesn't require
license verification and can be legally downloaded from anywhere on
the Net that bothers to mirror the software.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:08h:40m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:41:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:31:33 -0600
<D8r66.448$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>> >You will never find a version of Microsoft Windows which can
>> >achieve an uptime of over a week.
>>
>> This is debatable; a recent benchmark suggests that NT can run
>> an average of 6 weeks.
>
>two years is not recent. Remember, 2 years ago we had the mindcraft
>benchmark.
This was a different benchmark. I don't recall which one offhand.
>Are you going to say that Linux today is the same as it was when
>the Mindcraft tests were run?
>And before you go claiming that they were
>bullshit, even Linus admits that they pointed out flaws in Linux.
That they did, and that means Mindcraft inadvertantly "advanced
the Cause", as it were. Of course, they were quickly discredited
by those in the know -- but that was after they'd proven their
usefulness, to both Linux (which went to fix their bugs), and
Microsoft (which could now crow about how superior they were,
to ignorant cluebies).
I would surmise -- I don't have a copy -- that 2.4 addresses the
spinlock issue handily. I can't test it even if I did have a copy
(I don't have a quad SMP machine -- I'd love to have one :-) ).
I suspect that Win2000, however, can stay up indefinitely, even
under very heavy use (including console logins). But we'll see;
it's too new a product to be 100% certain -- and it's still got
that Microsoft trademark, which makes it suspect in my eyes.
Until Microsoft publishes the Windows source code, anyway.
(DOOM is published. I think Quake is, too. Hopefully Unreal
will publish theirs soon. :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- C'mon Microsoft. You know you want to publish. :-)
EAC code #191 3d:08h:44m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:54:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, spicerun
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:22:42 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:15:12 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows on a new
>>> computer without having to go thru 3 reboots.
>>
>>
>> Install? What install? All new computers will have
>> Microsoft Windows Whistler (Personal Edition) installed
>> on them and everything will be beautifully automatic -- until
>> you actually want to *do* something, like install a new
>> sound card or a freeware operating system... :-)
>
>And, we hope you love your computer since you will now have to buy
>another copy of
>Whistler if you ever change computers:
>
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010108/tc/
new_whistler_build_adds_anti-piracy_lock_1.html
>
Well, we can't just have everyone up and shuffling software copies
around everywhere, can we? I mean, that's just so gauche and
yesterday.
:-)
It gets even more interesting when one throws things such as
VmWare into the mix. If one sets up another virtual machine
(presumably, there's a config file and a disk image or something),
is another Whistler license required? It's bad enough with X11
if multiple people connect to a server and run a program -- this
is mostly an issue in the world of CAD, where I used to work.
(I'm given to understand that modern computers are "imaged", anyway.
A known good installation is done, the disk removed, and saved as
a physical backup somehow -- one could conceptually do
'dd if=/dev/hda of=/bigstuff/hda.image' on any Unix machine;
equivalent commands are possible on other machines, or one can
use a special-purpose disk reader of some sort.
Subsequent computers are "stamped out" by copying that physical
backup to the new drive; the drive is then installed and the
computer burn-tested, then shipped.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:08h:49m actually running Linux.
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:55:03 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:20:32 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >> CLI's are only "from the 70's" if you were bold enough to ignore
>> >> Microsoft prior to 1995.
>> >
>> >Let me see, what was I using at EMI and Digital before then. Gasp! A CLI!
>>
>> Since when has Microsoft ever sold timesharing systems?
>
>I'm sorry?
'Digital' was never a direct competitor to Microsoft.
Digitial Research, OTOH, was and they produced a useful
GUI long before Microsoft did.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:57:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:35:56 GMT
<08f76.2258$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:uGd76.288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "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.
>
>I have great admiration for anyone with patience enough to install Linux
>from a dial-up connection. I know I couldn't do it. I got impatient
>downloading the Windows 98 Beta image from a T1 connection.
I've done that, but it does take quite a bit of patience.
It helps when one's machines are on 24/7, though, with a
dedicated phone line. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:09h:04m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
