Linux-Advocacy Digest #527, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: You and Microsoft... (J Sloan)
Re: The Linux Show! (J Sloan)
Re: The Linux Show! (J Sloan)
Re: The Linux Show! (J Sloan)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (J Sloan)
Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: The Server Saga (J Sloan)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux ("Adam Warner")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:10:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:02:11 GMT, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:10:28 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:07 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:55 GMT, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:43:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> >industry or even
> >> >> >> >> >> the Macintosh.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
> >> >> >> >and perhaps even
> >> >> >> >> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
> >> >> >> >incompetent
> >> >> >> >> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that
> >> >> >> >he
> >> >> >> >> was completely unaware of any of that?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >His company was pretty much tied to IBM/Intel from the
> >> >> >> >get-go and for good reason because that's where the money
> >> >> >> >was.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's no excuse. As others here have pointed out, there were
> >> >> >> common data formats used across 6502's,68000's & 8086's years
> >> >> >> ago and Microsoft even had some early participation in the Mac
> >> >> >> apps market.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Being paid by an industry powerhouse to build an OS for a new
product
> >> >line
> >> >>
> >> >> DOS really has nothing to do with this discussion.
> >> >
> >> >The data formats it and the underlying architecture forced on people
are,
> >> >though.
> >>
> >> Do you actually have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> >
> >Can the arrogance, there's no need for it.
>
> Why? Someone is very ignorant.
>
> DOS didn't even provide a graphics subsystem.
It didn't even supply installable device drivers until V2
>
> If ONE had any experience with DOS AT ALL, one would clearly
> remember the VIDEO DRIVERS for INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS.
The best thing was to stick with Tseng chipsets back then as most game
makers supported them
>
> DOS didn't do SQUAT.
DOS was little more than a command shell for the BIOS.
>
> Beyond very low level programming interfaces, quite apart from
> the data, DOS didn't impose any constraints on the applcations
> programmer.
>
> This is PAINFULLY obvious to anyone with even a passing
> familiarity with the thing. Those things really bit you
> in the ass in daily PC use.
I know. I pre-date MS-DOS. CP/M was better
That isn't the point.
The point is that lame as the platform and OS powering it were, it sold so
well that they didn't need to concern themselves with any other platform.
>
> >
> >>
> >> DOS is a simple program loader. It doesn't do much of ANYthing to
> >> constrain end user applications. It doesn't even provide basic
> >> user or process management services or even a device driver interface.
> >
> >Couple that with lame hardware and multiply by massive marketing and hype
> >and you have the reason for the incompatabilities. MS didn't really give
a
>
> Nope.
>
> That just demonstrates a pattern of total negligence.
Exactly. Good word for it!
> That doesn't demonstrate any technological barriers.
Of course not.
>
> >damn about supporting other platforms or doing much to improve theirs
since
> >the vast majority of systems shipping were IBM based and MS powered.
Other
>
> ...yeah, like the Mac version of Excell that they pushed <snicker>.
I never had the opportunity to try it. I always prefered SuperCalc on my
DecPro350, anyway.
I never could cozy up to the MAC .
I used Lotus 123 v1.0a for the DOS end. Fast, simple and direct.
>
> >software vendors didn't have a choice either. It was either concentrate
> >support on that one platform or take a losing bet on one of the others.
>
> This is pure bullshit.
Its' what happened, though.
>
> If you're going to support multiple platforms, then you are already
> engaging in a considerable expense. Making sure that a wp8 file
> from a Sparc will look the same as a wp8 file on a PC is not that
> much more of a burden.
No it isn't. But, when corporate policy is concentrate on the PC development
and give the others a token product...
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >is a pretty good excuse! Also, if anyone was going to win the
> >"standards
> >> >> >war", it was going to be a juggernaut like IBM.
> >> >>
> >> >> Microsoft could merely have made their Mac apps conform to the
> >> >> way PC's do things right down the endianness of the raw data.
> >> >
> >> >Would IBM have liked that?
> >>
> >> Beyond 1985, they probably had little choice.
> >>
> >> Certainly beyond 1992 they had no choice.
> >>
> >> That's 9 years ago & 6 years before Office 98
> >
> >And now MS is the software version of the 1980's IBM. Actually, they've
> >outdone IBM by leaps and bounds when it comes to a market stranglehold.
They
> >dictate, for the home and business desktop user, what is standard and
what
> >isn't. They don't have a financial incentive to make their software
> >compatable with anything other than the Intel-Based PC. They couldn't
care
>
> That's not a technological argument.
>
> That's not even an engineering argument.
It's a market dominance argument.
>
> You've said nothing that supports the idea that Microsoft is
> somehow constrained or really even has a sound motive to
> skimp when it comes to cross platform data compatibility
> in 1998.
They have no constraints whatsoever!
They simply don't have the economic reason to do it!
It terrible to those of us who had to deal with it, but they really aren't
inclined to care.
>
> >less about supporting their Apple based releases. They all but killed
Apple.
> >It's of no concequence to them. Not like there's any money in it.
>
> Yet they continue.
>
> They must see some point.
>
> Also, that they don't view the Mac as a genuinely viable
> platform is no excuse. It's still not a motivation that
> fits into a profit and loss calculation.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:11:36 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Kev Ford wrote:
>
> > Windows 98 will crash every 2/3 days if it is doing any sort of
> > networking. Witness
> > my so called web proxy that became utterly unresponsive after about 50
> > hours uptime.
>
> That explains why our Windows 98 SE system at work stays up for months on
> end serving files to our group of a dozen developers with no problem at all.
And how would you know if it rebooted?
You do realize that there was a 49.7 day uptime
limit on windows due to some internal counter
nonsense, but nobody noticed for 4 years?
What does that tell you?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:17:53 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> >> >
> >> >BTW I just went there with Netscape and its all good....
> >> >
> >> >The show link works with either mpg123 or xmms -
> >>
> >> You were able to view the trailers in QT4 format under Linux?
> >>
> >
> >I have no idea what you're talking about -
>
> Linux doesn't have Quicktime decoders, as I understand it; this makes
> playing certain movie trailers (among them, "Antitrust", which is
> purportedly about the free software movement AFAIK) problematical.
I don't see any connection between "The Linux Show" and the
subject of quicktime trailers, which came out of nowhere -
> Flatfish++ and Chad are having mounds of fun with this concept,
> and it does appear to be a minor (very minor) credibility issue.
I would say less than minor -
What in bloody hell are they on about anyway?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:28:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The reviews for the movie talk about the obvious connection to Linux.
> Even the MGM web page has John Mad-dog Hall comments I believe.
>
> Whoever that guy is, he looks like he could use a long hot bath and a
> lot of soap.
>
This is quite an ignorant statement -
Assuming that anybody with a beard must be a dirty
drug using hippie is rather lame -Jon Hall was a
software engineer with Dec for some years -
Having sat near him at conferences, I can say there
is no substance to the silly "needs a bath" comment.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:29:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:51:23 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I have no idea what you're talking about -
>
> That's because I caught you in a blatant lie. You can't view the movie
> clips because they are QT4 format and nothing under Linux supports it,
> unless they changed things in the last couple of days.
What movie clips are you referring to?
jjs
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:15:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93qqpo$aqc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I'm jsut going to pick a few nits here ....
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > > > > > > It meant applications had to
> > > > > > > yield to achieve multitasking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup It's called "busy/wait" multitasking.
> > > > > It was obsolete back in the early
> > > > > 1980s, but Microsoft revived it for Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, Apple started it.
> > >
> > > Actually, Busy/Wait was first used in FORTH. Even today,
> > > many FORTH systems are used for robotics and engine control
> > > on automobiles, as well as thermostats, microwaves, and VCRs.
> >
> > Which doesn't change the fact that the previous year,
> > Apple introduce MacOS
> > with cooperative multitasking.
> > If it was obsolete, why did Apple do this?
Apple was stealing the code from SmallTalk-80, which evolved
from the same hot-bed as FORTH. SmallTalk came out of Palo-Alto,
and the 8086 processors required busy-wait to schedule the various
objects. Since each object simply waited for messages, it was pretty simple.
Shortly after Apple released the Mac, and Microsoft announced Windows 1.0,
Xerox became a party to Project Athena and GAVE the technology to the X11
project. The folks at PARC were so upset at Microsoft and Apple walking away
with research they had been working on for 6 years that they GPLd C
implementations and contributed STIX (smalltalk for X) to GPL.
> > And better yet, why is it only MS's fault?
A few months after the Apple Mac was released, I saw one of the first Sun
workstations. At $35,000 per workstation, it wasn't going to set any sales
records, but it was very easy to see that a SmallTalk like GUI on top of a
UNIX kernel would blow away the Mac if it ever became available for roughly
the same price.
Sun finally came out with a version of UNIX called the IPC and SLC which
could be configured for about the same price as a Windows 3.1 workstation.
Microsoft countered the threat by promising that Windows NT would be the next
version of Windows and "would be a better UNIX than UNIX".
Eventually, Windows 2000 actually did achieve the goal of being superior to
SunOS 3.0 or SCO unix (circa 1990).
Meanwhile, Linux has turned "UNIX" into a very rapidly moving target. Windows
still has the advantage in that it is easier to learn without using the
manual (on-line or off-line). But Linux offers more power, more utility, and
more functionality for any given price.
> Actually, Apple have made *lots* of technically bad decisions,
> along with bad business decisions.
There are many who speculate that when Woz had his accident, it
disrupted a delicate balance between the Woz led technical team
and the Jobs "showmanship".
Jobs was a genious at adapting to a market that changed and shifted almost as
fast as the Mississippi. But he also lost track. He made the mac a closed
machine and alienated the developer community as well as the third party
hardware community.
By the time he opened the system, Microsoft was already taking massive
market share with Windows 1.0.
The 128K Mac was very slow. The 512 k Mac was more expensive and Apple
gauged for the upgrades.
> They have also made enough good decisions in both
> areas to be plugging along with approx 7% (I think)
> of the desktop market. It will be interesting to
> see how well the Mac faithful take to MacOS X.
Unfortunately, many iMac owners were not pleased that
they had been left out of the loop.
> [ snip ]
>
> > > > You do realize that Tcl/Tk exists for windows, right?
> > >
> > > Absolutely. Which is exactly my point. Why code software
> > > in "Windows Exclusive" languages like Visual Basic or C# when
> > > you can just as easily use PERL, TCL, PYTHON, and JAVA? All
> > > of which let you kill two birds with one stone.
> >
> > Mostly because those scripting languages suck for real apps. I was involved
> > in the creation of a front-end to a CLI based configuration management
> > toolset written in Tcl/Tk and there were constant problems.
> >
>
> THey work fine for me.
>
> The big VB push comes from the use of VB in the applications as
> Application Basic.
> Actually, AB's not quite the same as VB, but there's enough similarity there
> for MS to push it pretty hard. This may have changed in the last couple
> of years.
>
> [ snip ]
> >
> > > Windows 2000 has a number of technological "anti-linux" measures. It took
> > a
> > > bit of time for the Linux community to figure out work-arounds. I
> > personally
> > > love that Windows 2000 supports both FAT 32 and NTFS.
> >
> > How is that "anti-linux"?
> >
>
> I'm not sure what Rex means here, either. The changes to SMB (Windows networking)
> and RDP (Windows terminal server) certainly don't help interopability much.
> Citrix Metaframe still seems to work nicely, though.
>
> To be fair, MS are helping the Samba project to some extent.
>
> [ another snip ]
>
> > > This is why the Linux and UNIX community doesn't trust any of Microsoft's
> > > tools and protocols. The fact is that Microsoft has made a number of
> > > contributions to the Linux and UNIX community, but primarily to protect
> > their
> > > markets. For example, when the Open Systems community threatened to
> > enhance
> > > RARP to provide automatic address configuration, Microsoft published DHCP
> > > assured that Microsoft clients would be compatible with UNIX servers
> > (which
> > > were replacing outgrown Windows NT 3.51 servers).
> >
> > I don't think MS created DHCP. I could be wrong though.
> >
>
> The MS Press Windows Networking book implies heavily that DHCP is a MS protocol,
> but I don't think this is the case.
>
> Windows 3.1 had a bootp client which allowed the IP address and a few other
> pieces of network information (router, DNS server, etc) to be given out from
> a server (as is the way with bootp). The dhcp RFCs (can't remember the numbers)
> don't make any mention of MS. I think DHCP was initiated by the Internet
> Software Consortium, but wouldn't swear to it. FOr those who don't know, DHCP
> (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) is an enhanced version of bootp. The
> enhancements are in the areas of allowing dynamic leases and also an increased
> number of standard information fields and vendor-specific data fields.
>
> It is interesting to note that MS's DHCP client cannot correctly handle
> multiple DHCP servers handing out permanent leases where each DHCP
> server
> only allocates a subset of the addresses.
>
> > > SMB and WNS were published when GPL file systems such as NFS and AFS
> > > were about to be offered for Windows.
> >
> > NFS has been on Windows since 1990. I was using a sun NFS client way back
> > then.
> >
> I think Sun offered PC-NFS even earlier than that. It was very
> expensive,
> though.
> Rex may have been talking about an NFS server for Windows. I think these are
> comparatively recent. They also seem rather flakey :-(
>
> I also remember using TotalNet (SMB compatible) in 1990 or 1991 to allow PCs
> to use an AIX box as a file/print server. HP had LAN Manager / X out even
> before that.
>
> > > Microsoft tried to lock Linux out of the internet using MS-CHAP,
> > > but leaked the information when Linux servers threatened to lock
> > > out Microsoft MSN customers.
> >
> > MS-CHAP is merely an authorization protocol for dialups. Clients don't NEED
> > to use CHAP.
>
> Not sure about that. I saw a lot of emails complaining about MS-CHAP
> where it
> seemd the ISP was forcing CHAP. Never tried it myself, so it's
> anectdotal evidence.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:37:04 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
> is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
I know, we truly want to believe that, Chad - I'm with you,
I really am, but let's face reality:
* Windows/iis has been steadily losing ground to linux/apache
in the web server market.
* Linux destroyed windows in the specweb results.
* IBM is investing a BILLION dollars in Linux this year.
Let's face it, friend - it's downhill from here on for windows,
much as we hate to admit it. I feel your pain.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:37:53 +1200
Hi pac4854,
> From the country that brought you the legendary BOFH* chronicles. Would
> you really expect less?
>
> * http://bofh.ntk.net
Thanks for the link. I've been following the BOFH for a while now over at
The Register. Took me a long while to work out what a PFY was :-)
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:38:08 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> The 2.4 kernel was "shipping" with certain distributions for
> trial a few months ago, did that mean that the 2.4 kernel was
> released/shipping?
>
Huh?
What distro has ever shipped with a 2.4 kernel?
Maybe this spring or summer...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:45:17 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <2qR86.323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
> >> well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
> >> to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
> >
> >Why do you keep making this shit up? I never said any such thing, and
your
> >continuing practice of saying otherwise is beginning to get annoying.
>
> Making it up!
>
> Bullshit EF!
>
> If you've said this once you've said it a thousand times!
>
> Your worse than a GD 3 year old EF.
>
> First you say something, people can reprint it, look it up, and
> YET you DENY it EVER HAPPENED!
Fine, be my guest. Look it up. Reprint it. Prove me wrong.
> You are the most unbelievable asshole I've ever met on the internet
> and your a total fucking liar.
Haven't looked in the mirror lately I guess.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:47:33 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:49:53 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hasler wrote:
|>Charlie Ebert writes:
|>> I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
|>
|>> It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and copyright it
|>> for their own purposes,...
|>
|>No it doesn't.
|>
|
|How would you know what Microsoft has already copyrighted under
|their own from BSD? The license clearly allows that now that
|they've dropped the disclaimer that Berkley get's credit for
|the work.
Not quite correct. You are allowed to use, modify and distribute the code
without giving credit, but the original author still has the copyright.
You can't file off the serial numbers and claim it as your own, original work.
|>> ...thus not contributing back to the base code.
|>
|>No free software license requires that.
|>
|
|If you build on GPL'ed code you MUST release under GPL license
|or you can't use the code.
|
|So GPL'ed software requires you contribute back to the system
|or NOT USE THE CODE.
Use: OK
Modify: If you modify GPL'd code *for your own use* you don't need
to release the changes.
Distribute: If you modify GPL'd code and distribute the modified version,
*THEN* you need to release the source to your modifications.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:40:10 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Too late, the server has been installed as WinME.
Then why waste everybody's time with this?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:46:58 +1200
Hi J Sloan,
> > http://lwn.net/daily/ibm-ncsa.php3
>
> Cool!
>
> IBM really gets it, they have grasped what it's about.
I really understood that after reading Andrew Leonard's chapter on IBM:
http://www.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/09/12/chapter_7_part_one/index.html
And when pooled RAM becomes a reality in Linux clustering there won't be any
prohibitive software upgrade costs either.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:00:10 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:942dac$405$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch 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.
>
> Get real Erik... there are loads of possible problems here. Some hardware
> related...Card<->signal-carrier.. Networking settings can be a mess.
> Chipeset problems can arise.... think VIA chipset etc. 45mins is
> reasonable when one thinks with at least two reboots and with upgrading
the
> chipset at least another one.
Huh? All they had to do was unplug the PC from the net hub, replace the
cable with a local cable and plug it into the modem. There's no reason to
have to install a new network card. I've never met a cable company that
supported more than one NIC in their installation, and in many cable
companies terms of service, they will cancel your service if you do.
> > > As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
> > > plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and named,
> > > et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no reboots.
> >
> > About the same thing.
>
> What are you talking about?
Are you that incapable of following a discussion that you forget all about
the previous paragraph so quickly?
"About the same thing" means "What you describe is about the same thing as
installing it on Windows".
> > Was that 30 minutes of your 45 minutes?
>
> This was obviously on the Linux box
Nothing was obvious. He said He spent 45 minutes getting it to route
through the Linux box. In order to get it to route, Linux would have to be
set up to do so, thus it would seem to me that this figure includes setting
up Linux.
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> Well.. there are rarely problems after the install - even with NT. If the
> users dont poke around and dont touch the hardware things keep working.
But
> since this it is so easy with Linux - tryed this putting boxes on the
> network... with linuxconf it takes sekonds - he will certainly be back
> online in a few minuttes.
Not used a cable service provider before, have you? Usually, the ISP side
doesn't know what the TV side is doing. They disconnect cables and do
maintenance without thinking about how it might effect internet users.
Hell, when I had a cable modem it was down more than it was up (completely
network related).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
