Linux-Advocacy Digest #514, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux ("Adam Warner")
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:52:14 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's quite hard to be slow on that kind of a machine, you know.
>
> The SkyPiolot theme manages to do that (and 'Classic' is a bit faster,
> but you can still tell that it is sluggish in the screen draws). The
> browser itself, Gecko, is always fast at rendering HTML though.
Gecko is faster than Mozilla, and is a huge memory hog (~19mb+1.5 per extra
Window). It's slow to load up, and slow to work with. It FEELS slower,
therefor it IS Slower. And sometimes, using a computer is all about how it
FEELS.
> A PII/400 isn't state-of-the-art by any means.
It's also more than enough to perform workstation level tasks, hell, we have
16mhz processors that are surfing the net.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:55:56 GMT
ono wrote:
>
> > It doesn't have to be VBasic, for me. However, a VBasic for
> > Linux should be possible -- there's already a
> development/emulator/something
> > for Solaris that allows for the running of Microsoft VBasic;
> > its main problem is calling [D]COM/ActiveX/whatever things.
> And that's the point. The beauty of js,vbs is it's ability to interact with
> the system through COM!
> (you can't even write a decent script-virus with linux)
COM is a big hairy thing. I think that's one little reason why
.NET with its SOAP is being pushed by MagogSoft.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:57:13 GMT
On 16 Jan 2001 23:30:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Neat. Oh im sorry, where was that windows machine that can do 2 teraflops
>again?
>
>Chad? Claire? Dresden? Anyone?
>
It's in my living room right next to my particle accelerator courtesy
of BrookHaven Lab's.
I wonder if they have figured out how to disable DAE on that beast?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:53:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've tortute tested Linux with netscape running on a
> mere 32M. Short of something that acts as a fork bomb,
> nothing has ever made Linux thrash the swap partition.
How about sharing some details of your torture test. It's called revealing
"how we tested" information. Something you routinely demand from ALS
posters.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:59:01 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:34:05 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> 4M does not yield low-color 800x600.
>
> The maths simply don't work out.
THe rez works fine, it's the autodetection that is WRONG.
>
> Try to lie better next time.
Try answering the questions:
So HOW DO I DISABLE DAE using LINSUX?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:01:55 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:942fbk$bfo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > pornography:
> > > GUI all the way.
> > > This is where I flip the Bozo bit.
> >
> > I knew the 'pup tent' thing wasn't a stretch. Ever thought about changing
> > your on-line name to UberWanker?
> > (-:
>
> My expierence as a home PC consultant has shown me that everyone keeps porno
> on their computers. EVERYONE.
>
> I no longer make judgements for it.
I remember back in school when they had COMMAND-LINE porno --
pictures drawn using ASCII characters.
Anyway, the human body can be a beautiful thing.
One can again read "Sperm Wars" to find out why
pornography (even the mild kind) is generally
reviled, however.
"All books can be indecent books, the recent books are bolder/
For filth, I'm glad to say, is in the mind of the beholder/
When correctly viewed/
Everything is lewd/
I can tell you things about Peter Pan/
And the Wizard of OZ -- there's a dirty old man!!!"
Tom Lehrer
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:02:07 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:38:26 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >The market makes no judgement upon itself, it is the consumer who
>decides.
>>
>> ...decides? decides what?
>
>Decides what is popular, acceptable, "defacto", "norm". Come on, is it
>really THIS hard to comprehend?
Comprehending the though processes of humans is less obvious
than you let on. "acceptable" can mean a great many things.
Suitability for the purpose can be quite far down on the list.
A trivial demonstration of this is
MS-DOS versus Macintosh.
According to your naieve view of things, Apple should be the
company to be under indictment by the FTC/DOJ at this point.
>
>> In the case of WinDOS, the consumer merely decided to either
>> use what they thought everyone else was using or use what
>> was placed in front of them.
>
>And in the case of Apple? I have no doubt that Windows 95, 98 & Me's
>popularity was derived from Microsoft's MSDOS popularity, but it was popular
>for a reason. More popular than IBM DOS was, and Windows 95 was WAY more
"everyone else used DOS"
Did you ever use DOS? Did you ever try to install drivers in
DOS or Windows 3.x?
You don't seem to be aware of even the basic problems of
DOS including the need to do manual memory management and
do so while dealing with competiting applications requirements.
What might suit one app or game might cause another to fail
to even load. That's why third party tools vendors like Norton
and Quarterdeck did so well.
>popular than OS/2 Warp was, despite the dual marketing blitz.
Microsoft owned the new standard and IBM didn't have access to it.
Even when it was still just OS/2 and Win3x, Microsoft was the
owner of the definitive version of "what everyone used".
Quality had nothing to do with it.
"All things weren't equal". The ideal that the naieve ECON 100
model assumes didn't exist. Infact, even the naieve ECON 100
version of supply and demand acknowledges that certain markets
have different demand characteristics.
>
>> >This is basic economics. The consumers have decided, BeOS has no
>software,
>>
>> This is basic economic THEORY.
>>
>> This is Econ 101.
>
>And it still seems to apply.
The real world is seldom as simple as theory.
Besides, you didn't even completely represent the ideal.
>
>> >The consumer has decided. Albeit, they did it in 1994.
>>
>> ...try 1985.
>>
>> This "gotta be DOS compatible" meme was entrenched by 1988.
>
>I don't agree with this point. In 1988, the average PC user knew way more
>about their PC's then they do today. Windows has made this possible.
>MS-DOS & Windows 1, & 2still did not. Windows 3 didn't either, but 3.1
>began to make headway. Some might argue this is because more people were
Who are you trying to kid? In Win 3.x the drivers were still all
DOS drivers and manual memory management was still an issue.
Win 3.x only provided a thin veneer over the applications user
interface. The interface to the internals of the system was
still the same one from 1981.
>interested in PC's, and the idea that it's not as diffucult as "C:\>"
>anymore.
Except Win3x didn't insulate you from a dosprompt.
If you wanted to play games, even Win95 didn't completely
achieve this.
>
>> 1994 is just a side effect of legacy marketshare.
>
>See above.
People knew more about their machines as a matter of necessity.
This is a necessity that was only present in Kludge Klones. This
was not an issue for Macs, Ataris or Amigas. Consumers chose to
tolerate all the overhead of DOS merely to indulge their herd
instinct. The choice was completely uninformed past knowing what
platforms Lotus 123 ran on.
If anything, this retarded the development of the consumer computing
market as people found out about what they had to put up with.
>
>> >> >Linux has no quality software.
>
>> >> You have yet to demonstrate that in even the vaguest manner.
>
>> >Haven't I? Aside from you people in COLA, who the hell is running Linux
>on
>>
>> Not in the slightest.
>
>Ok, fine. Never mind then.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:58:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >So it's the help files themselves, to the end user it doesn't matter a
> >hill of beans what the technical details are, help sucks and that is
> >all he is interested in.
>
> Then they could quite easily come to the same conclusion
> for WinDOS should they be exposed to the wrong applications.
>
> It works equally well for either enviroment.
Except the application is never the problem under Windows, as that DAE is
controlled by directsound drivers.
> >And you STILL have not answered my question, as usual.
> >
> >So HOW DO I DISABLE DAE so ALL of my CDPlayer programs don't hog my
> >IDE BUS?
>
> You are simply full of shit.
And the green grass grows all around, and around, and the green grass grows
all around...
Now, stop smoking it.
> As others have demonstrated, DAE is not used by the vast majority
> of Linux CDplayers.
No objections here.
> >One minor detail you omitted:
> >
> >winamp WORKS fine on my system. So does WIn2k where I can check a box
>
> It still violates the style guide.
???
> You are a liar. You've been caught in your lie. Except for
> a few of your fellow shills, this conclusion is pretty
> much unanimous.
No, your the only one who refuses to examine the problem, and outright
declare this individual a liar. But I understand your a moron.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:02:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Now where have I herd THIS before... DrakX clearly seems to be
> >misconfiguring SOME AGP cards under LM 7.2. This is CLEARLY a bug in the
>
> 4M does not yield low-color 800x600.
I never said that the two were releated, I just said that there was a
problem, and DrakX configured as such. YOU are the one implying they are
connected.
> The maths simply don't work out.
They don't have to, as I belive the two to be somewhat unreleated ouside of
DrakX. But next time I test it, I'll be sure to say, over and over again,
that 4086 of RAM does not a lowcolor/800x600 make. We'll see if that clears
up the problem.
> Try to lie better next time.
Try to reply better next time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:11:16 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:53:31 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I've tortute tested Linux with netscape running on a
>> mere 32M. Short of something that acts as a fork bomb,
>> nothing has ever made Linux thrash the swap partition.
>
>How about sharing some details of your torture test. It's called revealing
>"how we tested" information. Something you routinely demand from ALS
>posters.
To some of you jokers, just doing a kernel compile constitutes
torture testing...
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:06:34 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Mandrake market's itself as a simple, desktop Linux. If there is a
problem
> >that YOU concider a "duh" problem, then it's a GENERAL problem to be
dealt
>
> Except that's not even the issue.
>
> I dispute the so called problems as they are stated.
Ah, yes, that's right, you deny any existance of a problem, period.
> I never even attempted to claim that the facts as
> represented weren't problematic.
That's because you outright deny problems exist.
> >with. Just because YOU know how do fix it doesn't mean that the problem
>
> Try to argue against the position, not your distortion of it.
I am. You inist that NO problem exists. Care to imply WHY you disbelive
problems reported here?
> >doesn't exist, nor that the problem isn't a "problem" because YOU can
live
> >with it.
> >
> >It's not just Mandrake either. There are a lot of user interface snafu's
> >present in a lot of desktop Linux's, snafu's that you chalk up to "user
> >incompetence" when it's just a problem of changing the UI to accomidate
THE
> >USER, not THE POWER USER, THE ADMINISTRATOR, or YOU.
>
> That is true of GUI's in general. The comes from users in general
> failing to approach the system from an abstract (general purpose)
> point of view.
You mean YOUR "expierenced" point of view. The entire world is ready to
embrace a Linux, but people like you are unwilling to give it to them.
> As soon as they encounter anything unfamiliar, they can't cope.
The same could be suggested for you. If you encounter a pure-GUI
enviroment, you just can't cope. Yet YOU expect, no demand that users cope
with your way of doing things. Time to make a consession.
> One might just as well run a cheap DOS box at that point.
They are. They like it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:15:21 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:59:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:34:05 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>> 4M does not yield low-color 800x600.
>>
>> The maths simply don't work out.
>
>THe rez works fine, it's the autodetection that is WRONG.
Depending on how the TNT allocates the physical
memory, that might not be incorrect actually.
The other 8M is probably dedicated texture cache.
>
>>
>> Try to lie better next time.
>
>Try answering the questions:
>
>
>So HOW DO I DISABLE DAE using LINSUX?
Use any other CD player other than xmms.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:16:51 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:47:41 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Then they could quite easily come to the same conclusion
> for WinDOS should they be exposed to the wrong applications.
No, because under Windows the help files are written, with the
exception possibly of early beta stuff, but kde and Gnome have been
out for years and the help system is STILL DISMAL...
> It works equally well for either enviroment.
No it doesn't.
It works under WIndows.
It doesn't work under Linsux.
>>
>>
>>>[deletia]
Yea, all the important stuff...
>>So HOW DO I DISABLE DAE so ALL of my CDPlayer programs don't hog my
>>IDE BUS?
>
> You are simply full of shit.
So prove me wrong and answer the question...
> As others have demonstrated, DAE is not used by the vast majority
> of Linux CDplayers.
Could have fooled me looking at the hard drive/CD activity light which
is virtually always on.
Could have fooled me, considering there is no audio cable hooked to
the CD or Soundcard, yet I hear audio.
Where is it coming from?
>
> It still violates the style guide.
Who cares?
It works...
And Linux applications follow some sort of style guide?
How come I single click on a directory tree (left pane) using Gnome
File mangler, but have to double click on the icons in the right side
pane?
That's real consistent.
> You are a liar. You've been caught in your lie. Except for
> a few of your fellow shills, this conclusion is pretty
> much unanimous.
I haven't been caught in anything because it is fact and true, and you
have no way showing me how to solve the problem under Linux.
That's because the SBLive driver under Linux sux, and seems to default
to this mode and there is no way to turn it off.
I suspect most people wouldn't even notice, except they will notice
that when playing audio CD's Linsux runs even slower than it usually
does.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:17:59 +1200
Hi .,
>> I know these stories have been popping up often, but it's hard to get too
>> blasé about 2 Teraflops of computing power.
>> http://lwn.net/daily/ibm-ncsa.php3
This would be the next neat thing:
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2674383,00.html
"IBM will be working with the community and contributing to further 2.4.x
releases and the 2.5 kernel in the areas of Logical Volume Manager and
clustering, including ongoing MOSIX projects such as scalable Web servers,
cluster installations for quick configuration of a MOSIX cluster and Network
RAM for large processes that span the main memory of several nodes."
Imagine Network RAM that could span the main memory of serveral nodes!
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:20:16 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:58:33 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >So it's the help files themselves, to the end user it doesn't matter a
>> >hill of beans what the technical details are, help sucks and that is
>> >all he is interested in.
>>
>> Then they could quite easily come to the same conclusion
>> for WinDOS should they be exposed to the wrong applications.
>>
>> It works equally well for either enviroment.
>
>Except the application is never the problem under Windows, as that DAE is
>controlled by directsound drivers.
I've never had any problems with dae either. I've just
never used to create eye candy. I've also never had
any problem with an application unexpectedly using it
without prior explicit configuration.
>
>> >And you STILL have not answered my question, as usual.
>> >
>> >So HOW DO I DISABLE DAE so ALL of my CDPlayer programs don't hog my
>> >IDE BUS?
>>
>> You are simply full of shit.
>
>And the green grass grows all around, and around, and the green grass grows
>all around...
>
>Now, stop smoking it.
Just use anything else besides xmms.
Although, with your reliability this isn't even a problem
with xmms either.
>
>> As others have demonstrated, DAE is not used by the vast majority
>> of Linux CDplayers.
>
>No objections here.
>
>> >One minor detail you omitted:
>> >
>> >winamp WORKS fine on my system. So does WIn2k where I can check a box
>>
>> It still violates the style guide.
>
>???
Bad UI, confuse user.
Certainly you've heard of the UI hall of shame if you've
trolled in here for any amount of time.
>
>> You are a liar. You've been caught in your lie. Except for
>> a few of your fellow shills, this conclusion is pretty
>> much unanimous.
>
>No, your the only one who refuses to examine the problem, and outright
>declare this individual a liar. But I understand your a moron.
Who are you trying to kid. All the other knowledgable users
here have done nothing but give a litany of applications
that don't do cd audio this way and don't suffer from this
'problem'.
You can't even tell the truth about the most obvious
and verifiable material.
Those who lie should at least try to be good at it.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:19:19 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well you should know by now Gary that my comments rarely apply to the
> server side of Linux because I don't deal in that area.
>
And why you I know this. You have only been posting to this ng for a
relatively short time. Or are you finally admitting that you have
posted under the aliases of Claire, Steve, teknite, and many more?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:15:21 GMT
In article <xo296.37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a646c23.341957648@news...
> > I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
> > company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
> > with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
> > connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
> > it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
> > setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
> > connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
>
> 45 minutes? What did he do? You already had the PC on your local
> network,
> right? All that should have been necessary was to plug the cable
> modem in
> (assuming it's an ethernet one) and turn on DHCP and reboot. If it
> wasn't
> on the network, then you'd have to install the network card and
> configure
> it, which of course could take some time but nowhere near 45 minutes.
>
Even if the computer is already on the network, you need them to
install the new card so you'll have enough cards to run your lan
as well as connecting to cable service. In other words, your existing
card has nothing to do with the cable installation because your
existing card is already in use.
And besides doing this, they will also probably install some other
stuff, i.e. a 'customized' web browser, and set your homepage to
their website, and so on.
In my case, it took 2 guys 1 1/2 days to do it. The whole first day,
the service was down citywide and the installers didn't know it. They
were about to install a different cable from the curb to my living room.
The second day, they came back again and finally got it working, then
had to make another visit because they used my nic instead of their own
in the installation, even though I had expressly requested otherwise,
multiple times.
I'm not saying the guys were dumb, but cable installation, like phone
support, is often not a lifetime career; the good ones tend to move on
to other things after becoming really competent.
<snip>
> What were you doing? All you had to do is set the default gateway to
> the Linux PC.
<snip>
In my case, the version of dhcpd in my distro did not work, and
I couldn't find an up-to-date precompiled one that would install,
so I got the source, compiled, and installed dhcpcd. Of course
it was determining this to be the problem that took most of the time.
> > With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point
> > blank
> > to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption
> > that
> > 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
> > expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
<snip>
I love Linux, but I don't think it's very amenable to the type of
'step 1... step 2... step 3...' training the cable co. is willing
to invest in, because there are always too many variables for that.
(But once you grasp the issues, you see that the flexibility is a
large multiple of the complexity).
> Wait till their network goes down. You'll call into their technical
> support
> department, and they'll force you to reconnect to the Windows PC so
> their
> front line script readers can walk you through figuring out that it's
> their
> problem.
For me every outage has resulted in the cable 'modem' not 'syncing up'
with their hardware; this has nothing to do with the OS. You just tell
them the lights are blinking and they know the OS isn't the problem. If
it does get to the OS you just imagine you're pointing and clicking
away, describing what you should see until they're satisfied and admit
it's their problem. Or if you think it might actually be your problem
you unplug your windows pc from the lan, plug it into the cable modem,
change a couple of settings, reboot, and place a call like any other
customer would (as you suggested); no big deal.
Of course you do not give the phone-support all kinds of crazy ideas by
telling them you're running linux; they will immediately give up without
calling whoever it is that actually fixes things at your local service
center (who probably already knows something is wrong, but maybe not,
and you have no way of knowing that). It's your job not to torture the
phone-people with problems that actually are on your own system (unless
you first entitle yourself by rebooting to windows).
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
