Linux-Advocacy Digest #529, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Martigan")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You and Microsoft... (Shane Phelps)
Re: MOZILLA SSL (John Travis)
Re: Poor Linux (Trevor)
Re: Poor Linux (Trevor)
Re: Poor Linux (Trevor)
Re: Poor Linux (Sauosol)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (mlw)
Linux Mandrake and Diamond Viper - No Screens Found ("rnwalker")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Todd")
New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Todd")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Todd")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:31:13 +1100
mlw wrote:
>
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > You have never used terminal services and have no idea of what it is.
> >
> > I am talking the complete full totally just like you're sitting in front of
> > it administer. You are looking at the desktop and have access to everything.
> > Everything. Get it? It's like being there.
>
> Oh yea, right, sure, I'll run terminal services on a web server box.
> Cold day in hell, are you insane? The whole terminal services
> infrastructure is a disaster, it requires at least 32M for the service,
> and 4M-8M per connection. That's 40M ram (minimum requirements and you
> know what that really means!) just for for the server!!!! Under UNIX
> remote access / configuration requires 0 additional resources, just
> what it takes to connect.
>
> Terminal Services required an extensive rewrite of low level components
> of NT 4.0 just to shoe horn it in. It is a "service" not a tool. It is
> not designed to be an administration portal, it is designed to be an
> application service. It is very heavy and a very poor choice when all
> you want to do is administer a system.
>
> Lets talk about bandwidth, shall we? try using terminal services over a
> 28K modem, or even 128~384 DSL!! There is no way you can claim that this
> is a workable setup. It isn't even worth discussing.
>
As much as I hate to agree with a dishonest sleaze like Conrad on anything,
TS is actually not all that bad as far as bandwidth goes. Citrix
Metaframe is
better, though.
I ran the Hydra (NT4 TS) beta and the Citrix pICAsso (Metaframe) beta as
a trial
a while back (probably a couple of years ago now) and it wasn't at all
bad even
across a 28.8 line. Not as good as a LAN, but not bad.
My experience is that ICA is more efficient than RDP, and Citrix
supports a
*lot* more client OS's.
I don't think I'd put a naked NT box outside a firewall, though - especially
one running the telnet service or TS. I'd be wary putting a naked Linux or
Solaris box there, too. An OpenBSD firewall is another matter :-)
Yes, NT TS is a bit heavy on resource use. Our experience with Metaframe
on NT4 is that 32MB base + 4 - 8 MB / user is close to the mark.
Granted Metaframe isn't TS, but I think the resource requirements are similar.
That's MS's recommendation, and it's actually quite close to the mark.
There can also be some hefty CPU/memory requirements for the applications.
> >
> > >
> > > Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
> >
> > Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be done through
> > the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if you have any
> > decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed remotely.
>
Conrad's a fine one to talk about apologies and decency!!!
> Please, I know NT and 2K very well, thank you. I am, after all, an
> NT/Windows developer when the money is right. I get my stupid MSDN email
> updates regularly.
>
> Just tell me, you can dial up AOL, log in to your office system and
> administer it easily using terminal services. Tell me you can add
> terminal services to heavily loaded web server without affecting it
> performance.
>
> Why run a bloated remote GUI service on NT over the internet which
> requires 40M (minimum) ram (32M always resident, minimum), not including
> the programs you need to run, when on UNIX remote access is secure (ssh)
> and requires very little memory (1M only when connected)?
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
You can run sshd as a service on NT/W2K as well. NT's command-line
administration isn't anywhere near as easy as *nix, but that may just
be a matter of familiarity.
Going off on a tangent here, but NT TS (or Metaframe) can work reasonably
well tucked away behind a Tarantella box.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Jan 2001 21:26:29 +1100
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In article <93v1tm$41b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Basically, poke away at the problem, collect clues, and then let further
>> investigation be guided by those clues.
>Or scrap Linux and install WinME. That worked first time.
But then one would assume you had a *reason* for installing Linux in the
first place.
Let me put it mildly --- for all anyone here knows, you are a dyslexic
and typed "192.168.14.8" as the IP address instead of "192.168.41.8".
That would produce exactly the symptoms you have described, and not
surprisingly, the problem would also "magically" disappear when you
install WinME, because for that you re-enter the numbers.
You might have hit on a valid problem (though especially in the area of
networking, I have some serious doubts), but you have provided absolutely
nothing to make anyone believe so. Your most detailed description of the
problem so far has been "the machines can't see each other". Yeah, right.
Yesterday, one of my machines suddenly wasn't on the network anymore.
Uh-oh. It was my old Alpha, which I am running with a network driver
that isn't completely kosher --- every 49.7 days, there is a risk of
it dropping off the net because the jiffies overflow. But I was sure
it hadn't been 49.7 days since I last rebooted it.
Turned out I had stepped on the network cable when I picked up something
from a shelf, and had pulled it out of the Alpha's network card. And lo
and behold, before I realized that, I had a machine that couldn't be seen
by any of the other machines on the network, and that itself couldn't
see any of those other machines. Sound familiar?
Bernie
--
Human blunders, however, usually do more to shape history
than human wickedness
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:42:14 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> With the exception of cost, and that is really debateable considering
> the large amount of time wasted configuring Linsux, I can see
> absolutely no valid reason to downgrade and run Linux.
>
So the Amigas groups kicked you out?
O.k. a few things for you. One M$ needs people like you! Two Linux is for
the people that want to make choices,not to have good ol' Bill make them for
you. At least when a distribution comes out it is entire, you don't need
SR-1, then SR-1a.1.34.5!
Linux is for people who have a clue about computers, so go buy one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:52:12 +0000
Bones wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Let's look at hardware, detection and drivers.
>
> OK.
>
> > Linux claimed it detected my Logitech WheelMouse and Matrox card yet
> > in reality neither was detected properly.
>
> Why, did it say your mouse was a CD-ROM drive or something?
> I like when Windows says its detecting hardware, but in reality you are
> waiting those five minutes while it scours your hard disk looking for legacy
> drivers. What's really a hoot is when it installs drivers for a device that
> isn't even attached to your system, or when it doesn't find anything at all
> (until two months later when it suddenly finds your hardware).
I had one that wouldn't let you install drivers for a modem, unless you
went through H/W profiles in to the unknown device and upgrade the
drivers. After that was installed, the M/W profile changed, and it saw
the new modem and then had the nerve to tell me that it had found new
hardware and ask if I would like to install drivers for it.
> I prefer not to do any hardware detecting under Linux myself. I just make
> sure that my kernel has the support I need, and all my hardware works
> immediately and flawlessly thereafter, for ever and ever. Amen.
Works best that way.
> > Linux also could not detect my IBM/Sony monitor...
>
> That's funny. "Uh oh, I picked the wrong monitor! This is one of those IBMs
> where the raster goes in the opposite direction. Damn!"
ROFL!!
> >, printer (Lexmark)
>
> Why would you want your OS to detect this? Is this some kind of internal
> printer thats plugged into a PCI slot where you can't see it?
He scratched off the writing on the font, so he can't tell what the
printer is. I don't know how he's going to buy ink for it then...
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:04:14 +1100
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.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
You must have got a really good 'un. Windows 9x seems to have become
progressively more unreliable since the first release of Windows 95
(which was actually quite an improvement over WfW 3.11)
3 - 4 weeks seems to be the practical limit for NT in normal networked office
use, and 9x is a lot less reliable than that. Most of the 9x users I
know seem
to power off every night.
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MOZILLA SSL
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:28:55 GMT
And on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:04:11 +1000, "ajaynath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spoke unto us:
:Hi All!
:After compiling and running the mozilla browser.
:I am not able to connect to secure website. Does mozilla browser can handle
:SSL ???.
:Thanks in advance.
:
:Cheers
:Ajaynath
He he... you compiled that beast :-). Well .7 was the first milestone
to include PSM in the release. Otherwise something like Debug ->
Install PSM from the menus IIRC.
jt
________________________________________
Alternative Computing Solutions...
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: Trevor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:15:38 +0000
At least MSDog supplies one with W2K
mlw wrote:
> Classy Jones wrote:
> >
> > Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
>
> Nor does Windows or NT, so what. They all need a driver.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Trevor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:14:09 +0000
At least MSDog supplies one.
mlw wrote:
> Classy Jones wrote:
> >
> > Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
>
> Nor does Windows or NT, so what. They all need a driver.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Trevor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:15:09 +0000
At least MSDog supplies one.
mlw wrote:
> Classy Jones wrote:
> >
> > Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
>
> Nor does Windows or NT, so what. They all need a driver.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Sauosol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:18:53 +0000
Your quite right, and this is the one point that embarrasses me most
about Linux. It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
afraid never will.
Classy Jones wrote:
> Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:19:35 -0500
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > You have never used terminal services and have no idea of what it is.
> > >
> > > I am talking the complete full totally just like you're sitting in front
> of
> > > it administer. You are looking at the desktop and have access to
> everything.
> > > Everything. Get it? It's like being there.
> >
> > Oh yea, right, sure, I'll run terminal services on a web server box.
>
> why not?
>
> > Cold day in hell, are you insane? The whole terminal services
> > infrastructure is a disaster, it requires at least 32M for the service,
> > and 4M-8M per connection. That's 40M ram (minimum requirements and you
> > know what that really means!) just for for the server!!!! Under UNIX
> > remote access / configuration requires 0 additional resources, just
> > what it takes to connect.
>
> I dispute the 32M claim, that's just not so. I've run a W2K server without
> and then with and don't see a 32M difference. Otherwise, simply run the
> telnet service of W2K....
That 32M number is right from Microsoft knowledge base. Look it up if
you like.
>
> >
> > Terminal Services required an extensive rewrite of low level components
> > of NT 4.0 just to shoe horn it in. It is a "service" not a tool. It is
> > not designed to be an administration portal, it is designed to be an
> > application service. It is very heavy and a very poor choice when all
> > you want to do is administer a system.
>
> It did require a heft rewrite - but it was done for NT4. Now in W2K it was
> in there from the word go. Again, if ALL you want to do is administer the
> system, use the telnet client or any of a dozen other RPC tools.
Not all configuration access is available via telnet. Only those with an
extra text mode tool.
>
> >
> > Lets talk about bandwidth, shall we? try using terminal services over a
> > 28K modem, or even 128~384 DSL!! There is no way you can claim that this
> > is a workable setup. It isn't even worth discussing.
>
> OH PLEASE - get real. RDP was designed for low speeds, ICA equally. You
> cannot saturate a DSL connection with RDP. You have obviously NEVER used
> this product otheriwse you'd never make such obvious mistakes in your FUD. I
> have not used TS over 28.8k, true, but I've used it over 56K and it's ok,
> not speedy but ok. Over 128K ISDN? Just like being there. You really should
> try something before trying to put it down.
Yes, I have seen it work, and it is sort of cool, but I can also see
that given any real internet connection, with occasional hiccups and
periodic slowness, it is painful to use.
It is not viable as a remote administration portal.
[snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
> > >
> > > Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be done
> through
> > > the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if you have
> any
> > > decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed remotely.
> >
> > Please, I know NT and 2K very well, thank you. I am, after all, an
> > NT/Windows developer when the money is right. I get my stupid MSDN email
> > updates regularly.
>
> I find that hard to believe - and if it's true then you are a very poor
> "nt/windows developer" - if you don't even know the basic specs and
> capabilties of Terminal Services.
>
> >
> > Just tell me, you can dial up AOL, log in to your office system and
> > administer it easily using terminal services.
>
> ABSOLUTELY - have done this many times when a local ISP wasn't available!!
I guess your definition of usable is different than mine. I have seen
terminal services and it is slow and cumbersome, I would never consider
it for the role your are saying it fills. It's speed is kind of similar
to X, and while I think X is better, I still wouldn't even use X in this
configuration.
>
> >Tell me you can add
> > terminal services to heavily loaded web server without affecting it
> > performance.
>
> don't be silly, TS to a "heavily" loaded web server without affecting
> performance? Tell me what service you can add to any heavily loaded server
> and not affect performance. The answer is no.
I UNIX, there is no need to add a service, and this is the point, remote
access is built in to basic networking, or in the case of SSH, so
lightweight that it does not affect performance.
> BUT - why TS into a web
> server? You can remote admin the entire webserver using HTML tools from any
> web browser without taxing the system in the least. You can telnet in and do
> it. You can use RPC tools of various kinds. Dude - have you never even used
> IIS? Come on!
You can administer the HTTP server and IIS components, no one argues
this. Can you re-home the back end network? Can you add IP routes? Can
you diagnose the Oracle connection problem? What if IIS dies?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Reply-To: "rnwalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "rnwalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Linux Mandrake and Diamond Viper - No Screens Found
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:36:05 GMT
So I did myself another installation and keft it simple. Installed the
minimum (300mb) amount of components, no Internet connection instead of
ADSL. During the video card install, the screen defaulted to no device, I
selected Diamond Viper 770, this being the card I have. It has a TNT2
chipset.
After setup and first reboot, the OS stayed at the prompt after login. I
ran startx and here is the message I get:
(II) N; driver for Nvidia chipsets...
(EE) No devices detected
Fatal server error
No screens found
X connection to 0.0 broken
This being my 3rd installation now, does this mean my video card is not
supported even though it is listed on the install menu? What do I do next?
"rnwalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YW996.111315$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am pulling my hair out trying to get Linus Mandrake to run!
>
> I installed VMware 2.03 inside my Windows 2000 box, 128mb, PIII 500, ADSL,
> D-Link card. This is a stand-alone system in my home.
> I have installed Redhat twice and gave up on that. Tonight I did 2
installs
> of Mandrake 7.2 and I am ready to scream.
>
> First, during the install, it asked for the second CD and rejected that.
I
> extracted the files from the ISO and burned them so maybe that is the
> problem and I can live with that. When it asked for the 2nd CD, I hit
> cancel and the install continued.
>
> When we got to the network part I said I had ADSL and the install started
> doing its thing. It got to the network card and gave me the following
error
> "insmod'ing module lance failed at /usr/bin/perl-Install/modules.pm line
479
> No Ethernet adapter has been detected on your system". Bridging is
enabled
> in VMware and running in services.
>
> During setup it asked for a root pasword and confirmation. I gave it
> "catlove". It then asked for a user and I gave it "meesha" as the user
and
> "catlove" again as the password. I hit "accept user" and then done.
>
> The install said it could automatically log one user on at startup so I
> selected "meesha".
>
> After reboot, it waits about 3 minutes at "starting ADSL". It asks for a
> login that it was suppose to do automatically. I give it meesha / catlove
> and it logs me in and sits at the root prompt in text mode.
>
> What happened to this fancy interface? Is this VMware that is causing my
> troubles or Mandrake? Any help would be appreciated. I am sure as soon
as
> I get this going, my problems will only have just started!
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:01:08 +0800
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network
card
> > and turned on the machine.
> >
> > I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
> > automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and configured
the
> > network settings, in this case DHCP.
>
> Sounds a lot like my Red Hat system -
I have RedHat 7.0... still trying to get my ethernet card up and running...
> The difference is I'm not stuck with ms windows...
Well, I like a lot of OSes... but Windows 2000 is definitely the king of
installation. I am really waiting for OS X though... I wish Apple had
included the 'gaming' APIs... would be cool if MS ported DirectX to OS X.
-Todd
>
> 8-0
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:03:14 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:02:13 +0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> > For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network
card
> > and turned on the machine.
> >
> > I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
> > automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and configured
the
> > network settings, in this case DHCP.
> >
> > I didn't have to do anything at all.
> >
> > Now *that* is easy.
>
> All of which was pioneered in Unix/Linux.
That could be true, but I wish it just *worked* under Linux. I still can't
get my ethernet card recognized under Red Hat 7.0. And for some reason, it
didn't seem to install sound card drives for my on-board sound.
Oh well... I'm sure I'll get it working one of these days...
-Todd
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:07:48 +0800
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <93tsln$jap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:06:51 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Donn Miller wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> I also think that Xlib tends to scare potential games developers
away.
> >>
> >> Yet, despite of this I have a shelf full of fully supported
> >> commercial games. Fortunately, those that like to make money
> >> tend to have a 'can do' rather than a 'cant do' attitude.
> >>
> >> >> For one, the Xlib API is lower level then more popular windowing
> >> >> systems, like Windows' GDI.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Games delelopers generally use DirectX. I have had very little
> >> >experience with this, but it seemed to be very low level at the time
> >> >(much lower than the rest of the Windows GUI).
> >>
> >> Game developers like DirectX specifically because it allows
> >> them more direct access to hardware. IMO this is a BAD BAD
> >> thing. I'd rather prefer my modern OS in the 21st century
> >> to NOT indulge in such shenanigans, even for games.
> >
> >Why? If you've ever programmed for DirectX, you would already know that
you
> >*do not* get direct access to the hardware in *any* way. They are just
> >lower level APIs *compared to* the Windows GDI.
> >
>
>
> True. But DirectX was supposed to be their answer to Windows gaming
> performance problems.
Uhhh... I'm getting above 100FPS is many games using DirectX... my refresh
rate is only 75HZ. DirectX is very fast indeed.
> >However, because today's hardware is accelerated, the API overhead is a
very
> >small percentage of the overall work... just compare frame rates as the
> >resolution gets higher... soon the memory bandwidth limitations kick in
and
> >the API overhead almost doesn't matter. At lower resolutions, the FPS is
so
> >high that you don't get any advantage because it is faster than the
refresh
> >rate frequency.
> >
>
>
> Not true! They have added even MORE overhead to the process and
> the accelerated hardware has been nullified.
??!??!
You must be kidding... if that were true, the software drivers are *far*
slower than the accelerated hardware components... much less display
quality.
Where are you getting your 'facts'???
> Another classic case of the Microsoft WASTING AWAY your MACHINE.
>
> However 3d on Linux is simply a bullet!
According to Tom's Hardware, 3D games on Windows 2000 are faster than that
of Linux using NVidia hardware... so I'm not sure how you can make this
claim.
-Todd
> >(Assuming you are talking Direct3D - now integrated with DirectDraw as of
DX
> >8.0)
> >
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, Linux users are busy killing WinDOS users
> >> (and vice versa) on various Quake III and UT servers.
> >
> >Don't you have any other games besides Q3 and UT? I'm so bored of those
> >games...
> >
> >-Todd
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Common Standards, Common Ownership.
> >>
> >> The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
> >> and anti-democratic monopolies.
> >> |||
> >> / | \
> >
> >
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
