Linux-Advocacy Digest #534, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Re: Poor Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Craig Kelley)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Mig)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:15:55 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
>15:19:13
>> >> >> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
>> >> >
>> >> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
>> >> >we're talking about.
>> >> >
>> >> >We don't have all the time in the world.
>> >>
>> >> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
>> >> the details of the 'problem'.
>> >
>> >Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
>> >accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
>> >not be high on the list of things the Video department
>> >would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
>>
>> Odd then that consumer digital is distributed
>> in JUST THAT FORMAT.
>
>huh?
>
>1.) I don't think you know what you're talking about
>2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
Even so.
How lame can your authoring system be if it can't seamlessly
cut together disparate pieces of video. HELL, that's the whole
point of a corporeal video editing system.
>were making videos. Breaking up the already whole videos is
>just ANOTHER step we'd have to go through to reach the final product.
...a rather SMALL step.
My Apex 600 firmware can manage it. Why can't your
might video pros? The task simply isn't that herculean.
>All because of Linux's poor design. That's not a valid excuse
>when there are plenty of better choices out there.
>
>In this case, Linux would've cost almost 5x as much as the Windows
>2000 situation. We saved thousands of dollars by NOT using the
Bullshit.
Alpha hardware simply doesn't cost that much more.
This is especially true for the high end stuff that most
reputable people do video work on.
>"free" Linux.
>
>
>> >to meet their deadlines, spending hundreds of extra hours
>> >to split each video for seemingly no reason wasn't appealing
>> >to them.
>>
>> I think you're just full of it. If their editing
>> system is capable of mastering digital media
>> suitable for consumer distribution then this
>> 'issue' should already have been dealt with.
>
>I didn't say they didn't have the capability, all I'm saying is
>splitting the video is a step that doesn't need to be taken
>in the full process.
>
>Look, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
All I know is that for those companies that actaully make
product that we can go out and touch, it's not a real
problem. OTOH, you try to present to us this unkown
shadow company that can't bother to read data from more
than one file on disk.
>
>Do you walk around your computer 15 times and jump on one leg
>20 times before you turn it on? No of course not. Why? Because
>there's no reason and it's a waste of time. Exactly.
For something on par with electric eyes, I might agree with
you. However, we're not talking about some college kid's
hobby project.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:17:44 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:02:13 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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
It does, for a variety of cards.
OTOH, there are some cards for which this doesn't work as
automagic as you claim it does on Win2K.
>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...
[deletia]
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:19:54 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:52:56 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Todd Needham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> "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.
>
>It does, dipshit.
>
>We are not responsible for Todd Needham's stupidity
Now now,calling him stupid is not called for.
Calling him a slandering liar might be more appropriate.
There is that set of hardware for which Linux is a no-brainer
and that set of hardware for which NT5 is a no-brainer. Deviate
from those on either platform and you have more manual work to
do.
Claiming otherwise is a really incompetent lie.
[deletia]
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:21:20 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:01:08 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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...
Either it has the driver available or it doesn't.
'Ease' isn't the problem, vendor support (most likely) is.
NT5 would give you the same problem if you had a logitech
usb webcam.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 17 Jan 2001 12:57:23 -0700
Classy Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
Poor Windows, it only works with ia32.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You are generalizing for a random large collection of
>> >> individuals.
>> >
>> >No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
>> >clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
>> >along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> This is assinine and trivially absurd.
>> >
>> >It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
>> >development.
>>
>> ...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
>>
>> Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
>> inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
>
>That comparison makes no sense.
>
>GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
However, the various GUI's haven't.
Regardless of how long X or Unix has been around, both GNOME
and KDE still need to get all of the architecture and
implementation issues worked out that will make them mature
stable products.
>GNOME uses X, that has been around since ages.
>GNOME uses GTK+ that has been around 4 years.
>GNOME itself has been around over 3 years.
X really isn't that relevant here as it's just a basic
driver layer. That's not what is being compared to on
WinDOS here. Even so, the actual version of X in use
still hasn't been 'around for ages'. It's relatively
young as well.
It's just a well known spec.
However, you could say the same for the basics of WIMP
when Windows 1.x or 2.x were cruel jokes.
>
>Compare things as they are, and maybe try to explain away lacks
>as being in process of being fixed, but comparing what currently
>exists to something noone even remembers is wishful thinking.
There's a good reason that no one remembers them.
Until about 8 years after the relase of Macintosh, and Atari
GEM, and the Amiga, NOONE to speak of used Microsoft's fetal
GUI's. They were crap for 8 years despite Microsoft being
the industry darling with resources to spare.
So, even GNUstep is doing quite well with it's timetable in
comparison.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:10:31 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:37:48 -0600, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> The problem is not about the backdoor behind found by OS, it's that it too
>> *so* long to find such an obvious backdoor.
>
>How obvious is it? Have you seen the code? Do you have any idea how many
>lines of code are in the application? Do you know how many people have been
>working on it?
Alternately, how many people were really looking? How many
people really cared? Interbase is abandonware. It didn't
get that way by being the sort of software that everyone
wants to pay attention to.
Peer Review isn't some form of magical fairy dust that will
suddenly yeild results because it's present. Someone has to
care first.
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 17 Jan 2001 13:24:22 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
> > shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
> > application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
> > willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
> > Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
> > blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
> > 'insert random Windows application here'".
>
> I think your logic is flawed. If you didn't care, you wouldn't answer.
> This very post is a categorical denial of caring, which of course indicates
> that you do in fact care.
So, Erik, you've joined the denizens of Windows advocates that read
COLA then?
How sad is that?
You honestly believe that Aaron Ginn is "in denial"? Perhaps you
should look in the mirror. I have one question that I'd love an
answer to:
Will we be buying Windows 2020? How about 2050? 2500?
Are we going to fork over $200 every two years *forever*? Linux/Open
Source (BSD, whatever) *will* be the norm, it's inevitable.
> If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't care enough to post a denial
> unsolicited.
... and a Windows advocate posting to COLA to tell a Linux user that
they are in denial doesn't signal something? :)
FWIW, my first Linux distribution was Slackware 2.02. I ran X11R4
with twm or (gak) fvwm as my window manager. My file manager was mc,
and xterm was my primary GUI app. I used to have to go down to
SVGAlib to run the few games available. I had to calculate the
modelines for my monitor (a Mag DX17f) and video card (a Diamond S3
with 2MB of RAM) and manually insert them in XF86Config. I had to put
in the IO port for my ISA Adaptec 152x (for my SCSI Zip drive) in
lilo.conf. I had to compile many packages myself. I had to write my
own smb.conf and httpd.conf.
RedHat 7 is compeletly different -- all my hardware was autodetected.
A co-worker had a sansdisk (compactflash reader) that wouldn't work
under Windows 2000. I had just upgraded to 2.4.0 (final) and so I
plugged it into my USB port and it just *worked* with no problem at
all. (Well, actually I didn't have fat16 compiled, because I never
use it -- but that was my fault and took 20 seconds to make the
module). Ditto for a Lucent Orinoco WaveLan card. It would *not*
work on their Windows 98 machine, but just auto-detected in my PCMCIA
port. (turns out they needed to to a ROM update to fix the problem,
for some reason -- the Sansdisk still doesn't work under w2k,
though).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 13:25:15 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > A PII/400 isn't state-of-the-art by any means.
>
> It's _way_ more than a workstation need.*
> Hell, I used to do 3D Graphic work on a 133 + 16MB. And didn't saw anything
> strange in having to do all the rendering at night.
... not running Windows NT or Windows 2k (sorry, couldn't resist :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:24:38 GMT
In article <kvl96.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
<snip>
> The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that
they used
> beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released
version,
> but beta's were also used).
>
And how do they determine what is an "unplanned reboot"?
"In the event of a shutdown, as soon as the next Windows session
starts, the tool sends information such as how long the system has been
running (session time)and whether or not the previous session ended
with a normal shutdown or abnormal shutdown..."
In the absense of more information, I must assume that anytime the user
voluntarily restarts the box, it is a "normal" shutdown. Abou the only
thing that counts as abnormal are BSODs and power failures.
So power failures skew the results toward low reliability. But what
about all the times when nothing works right, or you get error messages
to the effect that "the system has become unstable" or "low resources"
and you "voluntarily" reboot to solve the problem. This now counts as
a normal shutdown, even though it was system unreliability that caused
the shutdown. I would like to see the total number of reboots
("normal" and abnormal") over the study period.
Sorry, but the methodology of this study is BADLY flawed. Not to
mention that the whole concept of shutting down the machine every night
is an artifact of the historical unreliability MS software. The Unix
boxes I work with (as workstations, not servers) are NEVER shutdown for
other then hardware problems/upgrades.
> The interesting thing about the study is that the number of hours
monitored
> for NT were a little over 1/3 of the number of hours monitored for
2000, and
> the number of hours monitored for 98 were a little more than 20% of
those of
> 2000.
>
Yea, this troubles me as well, in particular 20 boxen is not a
reasonable sample size for the Win98 boxes.
<snip>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:46:02 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
And when Microsoft insist that you register your product in order to run
it, what then? And if the only way to get it registered is on the net, and
you aren't on the net, what then? Post off a card and wait for Microsoft to
send it back?
These are the rumours on The Register.
> Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
> version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
I bought Mandrake 7.2 for £5, what $8?
> Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
> Full support is included.
£200 without support.
> Do you really want to Download 650 meg of data?
> Take a look at how many people are having trouble burning the CD's in
> the Mandrake group.
I burnt one with no trouble at all.
> Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
> and not a full system like the $35.95 version
I've never used Microsoft support, and I've never used Linux support.
> Let me introduce you to Netscape, the premier browser for Linux.
I've been using Netscape from the very beginning.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:39:30 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > BTW That 72 weeks assumes you turn off the computer when you go home,
> > and only work 40 hours a week. Bogus. It is really only about 18 weeks
> > of constant uptime (closer to 17).
>
> The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop
> *IS* shutdown at night.
Uncorrect Uncorrect.. At my workplade with several hundred PC's they do not
get shutdown at night - not even the win98 ones - people simply log off and
turn the monitor off. Not everybody does this but i guess 80% do it this
way - including me with my W2K box.
> > Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by Microsoft,
> > that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
>
> The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that they
> used beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released
> version, but beta's were also used).
Grea..after SP2 i guess we are out of beta :-)
> > Just so people know, MTTF is the "mean time to failure" which means that
> > given any Win2K system, there is a good chance it will crash within 120
> > days, and that NT will crash within 38 days, and Win98 will crash within
> > 9 days. There is also a likelihood that it will be much sooner.
>
> or much longer.
No.. after a reboot everything is babyfresh.... The ressources eaten by
screensavers are available again for a while this increasing reboot time.
Show more logic here Erik.. you can do better rthan this
> > There is nothing more to be said. The MS-Zealots claim that their NT/2K
> > systems have longer uptimes, but they are either being dishonest or they
> > are not the norm. Microsoft has funded this study and used the results
> > in an advertisement campaign.
>
> And what's the MTTF of Linux? Empirical studies, not anectdotes about
> single systems.
Agree. Where is the data.. maybe MS will fund a study and we will get the
data for free. For servers i think its very high... for desktops probably
the same or better than Whistler when its ready.
My predictions for Whistler include a study by MS that shows that Whistler
is 4 times more reliable than W2K and Microsoft will say that W2K sucks and
all problems are solved by upgrading to Whistler.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:50:17 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >It runs, but struggles a bit.
>
> It doesn't even do that.
In order to get anything near to Windows it does. Windows ME glides along
very nicely, but KDE on this machine struggles.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:53:25 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >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.
I wanted a server that I could remotely log into. I can't do that with
Windows.
> 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.
I checked, I didn't do that for the first installation. I did for a
subsequent one, spotted the error and fixed it. Then TCP/IP worked fine.
But as for the first time, nada, zip.
> 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.
Pinging revealed neither machine could see each other.
> 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?
Sorry, but it wasn't a hardware problem. I tried again and it worked.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:52:47 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:46:02 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>> Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
>> and not a full system like the $35.95 version
>
>I've never used Microsoft support, and I've never used Linux support.
>
>> Let me introduce you to Netscape, the premier browser for Linux.
>
>I've been using Netscape from the very beginning.
Netscape 1.01N was my third browser.
..can't wait for Opera to get out of Beta.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:56:18 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> 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?
Easy. The web server mainted it's own counter. It was dated three months
ago. That wasn't hard was it?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
