Linux-Advocacy Digest #611, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 13:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (.)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (.)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (.)
HELP (ARTYOM)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Ed is the standard editor (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Donn Miller)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:12:24 GMT
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:26:02 -0000,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed something like:
>>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
>>> [...]
>>>>I'm not a RedHat fan. I don't think RedHat is worse than Windows.
>>>>But RedHat and Debian are at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum sir.
>>>
>>>How would you characterize the difference, Charlie?
>>
>> Conservative versus bleeding edge. Debian seems to be much
>> more conservative about what it includes. This includes
>> licencing philosphy. They also tend to package the older,
>> more stable version of a component. They also seem to
>> concentrate first on getting particular core functionality
>> (like packaging) right before going after flash and market
>> appeal.
>>
>> They're kinda of like Slackware in that they are relatively
>> not market driven but with more of a usability focus (like
>> package management).
>>
>>--
>>
>> 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
>> |||
>> / | \
>
>But at the same token are also ALWAYS working with the latest
>versions and software. Apt-get is such a godsend. I configured
>my debian box to only look in the UNSTABLE heirarchy tree.
>In a year of doing this, it bit me in the ass exactly once by
>getting an unstable configuration (an upgrade to libc that
>caused sendmail to have a coniption fit for some reason).
>
>That's what I love about debian. For a server, it's one of
>the most rock solid stable distributions (especially if you
>crontab an apt-get update to make sure you always have
>the up-to-date STABLE patches) but also giving the ability
>to run more bleeding edge (which is nearly as stable
>from my experiences).
>
>Hats off to debian (and in my opinion Stomix for a
>good debian based distro).
>
>
>
>
>--
>Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
>
>"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
>of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
> -- Winston Churchill
Let me just add, I reflect the positive comments about Debian 100%.
Debian has the largest package pool.
It IS the largest Linux distribution.
It IS the most stable Linux distribution.
It IS the distribution which molds the LSB.
It IS the distribution of Linus Torvalds as well as Richard Stallman.
Debian is the LINUX COMMUNITY distribution.
It's also the Widest distribution. By Wide I mean it's footprint
of supported hardware. Debian runs on Mac's, Sparc's, Ultra Sparcs,
IBM 390's, Amiga's, Intel's, and OTHERS. There is NO other linux
distribution with this wide a footprint.
Debian is BSD based and get's along with the 3 BSD's, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
and FreeBSD. There was even talk of comming up with a Debian which
ran on the FreeBSD kernel at one time, I don't know what happened to
that project.
Debian is host to all TIP development for GNU such as the HURD
distribibution.
Debian prefers to call Linux - GNU Linux.
Debian has the traits of OpenBSD with it's superior security, NetBSD
with it's extreme portablitiy amongst hardware platforms, and FreeBSD
with it's performance.
I have run Mandrake and Mandrake is supposed to be the fastest
of the .rpm compiled distrobutions. Debian matches Mandrake.
Debian is everything the other Linux distributions wished they could
be.
But RedHat is king of the hill for userbase. RedHat has the highest
user base of all the Linux distributions.
I tried Redhat after Slackware. I wanted an upgrade path which was
better. But what I found in Redhat made me sad they had broken
software in the distribution and the upgrade was hard because of
the dependency problem.
Debian is much easier to RUN and UPGRADE.
Instead of starting a WAR here, I would like to propose the following
RADICALLY DOOABLE idea!
Why don't RedHat MERGE with Debian?
Redhat has the marketing venues and the support, Debian has the better
software.
Redhat is currently building THEIR version of apt-get for .rpm.
Why not just solve the rest of the problems and MERGE.
Let Debian develop the OS and release it to Redhat. RedHat can
contribute to the unstable tree as they see fit. Debian will still
release and sell stable, Redhat can cut from unstable at 3-4 month
intervals.
And switch to .deb's.
This will get Mandrake off their backs and Suse too.
And it will make for a much more powerful Linux organization.
A more mobile organization as RedHat will be able to support Sparc
customers again.
I like this IDEA! What do you think?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:16:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:10:28
> [...]
> >> It was a piece of shit thrown together at the last minute so
> >> that IBM would have a microcomputer to slap it's logo onto
> >> to keep people from starting to take Apple too seriously.
> >
> >No one would argue the piece of shit part. The shrewdness came from the
> >timing and the opening of the internals for third party manufacturers.
> >Apple took the closed system, proprietary approach and were destined to
> >fail because of that. It made no difference how good their hardware was.
> >I've already stated that there were far better platforms out there,
> >hardware-wise. The competing PC companies lost to IBM's business plan,
not
> >to their technology.
Hi Max, Here we go again...<g>
> I think you make a faulty assumption when you presume that IBM started
> "the PC industry" as a 'business plan'. Truth is, they did *not*
> purposefully release the specs to allow a competitive market on an open
> architecture, though that was, indeed the result.
I'm more than willing to agree that an accident started the ball rolling for
them. I'm quite sure that, viewing their past business practices, that it
was indeed not the plan. They certainly knew that they were benefiting from
that mistake though. The entire PC community was one big advertisement for
their company. "IBM compatable" - "PC compatable". An entire market niche
was named for them and their name became synonymous with it.
<...>
> It was the cloning of the BIOS, not the support of the hardware
> architecture, which really set the field for the "PC wars". Those wars
> weren't between IBM and anyone or everyone else, but between those who
> manufactured *clones* of the IBM PC/XT/AT/etc, and those that
Again, their name plastered all over every aspect of the industry.
> manufactured PC *compatibles*. The clones won. So you are right, "it
> made no difference how good [or how bad] their hardware was." But IBM
> lost to "the business plan" as much as anyone did. Their attempt to
> re-propriatize the market with the Microchannel architecture seems to
> conclusively prove that.
A return to their prior business methodology. THAT was a BIG mistake.
>
> Starting the PC market was definitely an 'oops' for IBM. One of those
> "accidents of history" which tends to make fortunes. Since then, of
> course, IBM has learned how to take advantage of such occurrences, which
> is why they are so strong behind Linux.
There's hope for them yet.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:24:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:30 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Well, here we go.
>
>I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
>linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
>drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
>Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
>for the Deluxe box.
>
>It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
>plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
>have a real-world comparison, taking into account and reflecting on the
>monopoly, pre-load, and ease of installation. The Win-whiners aren't
>going to agree, of course, but I think seeing just how easy it is to
>install 95 or NT on a box that has Linux preloaded is going to be very
>instructive. I've said I'd never build a PC from scratch again, and
>would prefer an OEM earned their profit by integrating the system for
>me. But in this case, the exact same hardware is supported by the same
>vendor as a dual-boot option, (can you believe it? an OEM selling
>dual-boot), so I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Plus which, if
>Windows for some reason is too much of a hassle to get up, I'll still
>have a functional system, so that might help eliminate the 'frustration
>and desperation factor' which so badly reflects on the monopoly in the
>typical scenario.
My one piece of advice, for what it's worth: have a floppy boot disk
handy; as you're no doubt already aware, Microsoft loves
to clobber MBRs. :-) (The RedHat install disk would probably be
OK, too, since a modern CDROM will boot from it; at a certain point,
one can create a floppy disk, or mount the system drive and rerun LILO
therefrom.)
Nice machine; go for it and good luck.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:12h:52m actually running Linux.
Darn. Just when this message was getting good, too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 17:25:35 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi "sfcybear",
>>
>>>>
>>> http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>>
>>Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
>>
>>Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
>>
>>Thats a pretty big difference.
>>
> I don't know why more people don't cite Google.com for an excellent
> reference on Linux Clustering capability.
I do it all the time. :P
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 17:26:19 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi "sfcybear",
>>
>> >>
>> >
> http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>>
>> Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
>>
>> Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
>>
>> Thats a pretty big difference.
> Man, this isn't even vapor.. it hasn't even been *STARTED*. They claim to
> not have the machine ready till 2004. Lots of things will change in both
> the Linux and Windows side before then.
Alright then. 6,000 nodes on the Google linux cluster.
How many nodes exactly are capable of operating on one W2K cluster again?
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 17:27:50 GMT
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <MGda6.1010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Hi "sfcybear",
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>>
> http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>> >
>> > Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
>> >
>> > Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
>> >
>> > Thats a pretty big difference.
>>
>> Man, this isn't even vapor.. it hasn't even been *STARTED*. They
> claim to
>> not have the machine ready till 2004. Lots of things will change in
> both
>> the Linux and Windows side before then.
> Um, to install 10,000 to 20,000 computers in 4 years would mean they
> would be installing 2,500 to 5,000 computers a year. That is an
> impressive number when you think of the issues involved! I'll be
> impressed if they get it done by the end of 2006. But hey Eric, Show us
> anything that indecates that ANYONE is even THINKING of doing the same
> with W2K.
Ummm...
Actually, you can very easily plug in any number of blank computers
and have them all kickstart and install themselves off of ONE linux
machine.
Personally, ive set 20 machines to image themselves after one central
machine and gone to lunch; when I came back they were all done and
happy.
Theres no reason that you wouldnt be able to do this on a very large
scale.
=====.
------------------------------
From: ARTYOM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: HELP
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:19:23 +0300
Помогите мне пройти TOMB RAIDER chronicles.Миссия:субмарина.Если
можно,то отошлите мне коды на эту рульную игрушку.Мне это срочно
надо.
Взамен получите диск>>>на халяву!!!Выбирайте>
Microsoft Windows 95 русская версия.Лицензионный диск от самой
Майкрософт!!!
Сборник игр>>>крутой сборник!
=========================
По всем вопросам обращаться ко мне
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:18:35 GMT
In article <1eba6.47917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> > I don't believe any of the crap that Claire posts, both chads and
> > funkenbush have all the credibility of oj when he talks about the
> > murders he was responsible for, but nothing that I have read from
you
> > appears disingenuous.
>
> Thank you for that!
>
> > Linuxconf is a Redhat tool. You can add it to either your KDE or
gnome
> > desktop, or launch the tui interface from the cli. Although it was
> > gpl'd, I don't believe that anyone in the gnome project can take
credit
> > for it.
>
> It's in Mandrake which was based on Red Hat. Also, it can run in text
or
> gui mode, and I believe it uses Gtk when in GUI mode. There was a KDE
> version (so I'm told) but it was scrapped?
Indeed there was an embryo of a KDE version.
But then I realized I preferred the web interface anyway, so why
continue working on it?
Besides, if you have matching themes in gtk and kde, it is pretty
damn difficult to notice linuxconf is not a kde app!
After all, it uses no dialogs but custom ones, and the most radical
UI element in it is the radio button.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:44:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:29:44 GMT
<c1.2b5.2Z0j7K$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marc L. Cohen"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>And considering that when I first used ed, the standard interface was a
>>Teletype terminal, not only powerful, but efficient.
>
>An ASR-33 ? No carpal tunnel with *that* baby ! wham ! wham ! wham !
>on each key, slow and deliberate, and watch the cheesy yellow paper to
>make sure you hit each one hard enough. Mistake ? Uh-oh, backspace,
>backspace, wham ! null character, holes across all eight rows ... at least
>it wasn't a Flexowriter. All these modern pansy editors that make correcting
>so easy ... (remember going to school in the snow with barbed wire
>wrapped around your bare feet for traction ? :-)
I don't remember the Flexowriter, but I did go to school in the snow
in my very early years. Of course, that's nothing; many of them
older than me will tell you that they went to school walking 5 miles
barefoot in the snow, and it was uphill both ways. :-)
And I've also used ASR-33s. I'll admit, I haven't seen one since
high school, though. :-)
>
>--
>hДrad ФngravvЕd
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- wondering what Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks
of "these modern pansy editors" :-)
EAC code #191 1d:13h:13m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:46:59 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:19:49 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is great. Now, rather that admitting the problem and working to solve it
>you attack the process.
>
>For the sixth time now, I will explain the obvious to lay people who seemingly
>have never processed a large video in their life.
They understand it alright, they are just trying to make you repeat
yourself to wear you down.
Classic Penguinista technique used when they have lost a discussion,
which is generally the case.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:47:05 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:10:03
> [...]
> >I know. I pre-date MS-DOS. CP/M was better
> >
> >That isn't the point.
>
> Indeed, it is.
>
> >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.
>
> You seem to be proposing that a profit-seeking business would be
> interested in not making more money.
Microsoft had already screwed over Apple with the Windows thing. Apple is
ALSO in the software game and by most accounts, did it better. It was in
MS's best interest not to support that platform. Apple was a true competitor
to them. They had the potential to actually hurt them. (They also had
incentive too.)
> No, good sales are not a real good
> reason for turning down a market opportunity. As a matter of fact, now
> that you brought it up, it was largely anti-competitive efforts to
> monopolize the OS which kept the platform lame, by being 'uncompatible',
> through Microsoft's passive, if not active, efforts, to change the
> platform. And the OS didn't sell well, but was force-bundled.
Despite the obvious business faux-paus, they got away with it. It made B.G.
the richest man in the world.
If supporting and standardizing multiple platforms were, in Microsoft's
views, advantageous, they would have done it.
Had they started with a technological edge and a decent product, they
probably could have benifitted by that approach. Neither of those were the
case.
>
> [...]
> >> That just demonstrates a pattern of total negligence.
> >
> >Exactly. Good word for it!
>
> Criminal negligence, in this case.
That they're soon to pay for either in a legal sense or market sense.
>
> [...]
> >> >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.
>
> I believe he disagreed, quite strongly. What are you, a moron? ;-)
>
> Just to clear things up, it was the 'losing bet' that made the bullshit
> most pure. You're presupposing that the bet would have been lost, based
> on the fact that it wasn't taken, it seems. There was no 'concentrate
> support', just 'get locked in to a monopoly'. There's no reason or need
> to second-guess why or how anybody got locked in to a monopoly. You
> can't blame the victim for the crime. Monopolizing is illegal.
I'm saying that the bet wasn't taken because they were too short-sighted to
see what would eventually come. Profits tend to make any MBA myopic.
>
> >> 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...
>
> The point Jedi is trying to make is that we know from Microsoft's own
> internal documents that they don't work that way. They didn't
> 'concentrate' on the PC development,
They concentrated on supporting platforms that they and they alone could
dominate.
> they excluded Macintosh
> development. Because it actually threatens their Windows OS monopoly.
I've said as much above. Actually, if Apple had a good CEO back then, they
could have had a much larger impact.
> Its not much of a threat, since they can make Office for Mac suck as
> much as they want should people start defecting from Windows, even at
> the expense of buying a new computer, because it sucked too much. And
> it has the added bonus as a facade for claims of 'support for
> interoperability'. Kind of laughable, given the current discussion,
> though.
Token gestures are a bit laughable. MS ports to that platform, and I get
this second hand since i'm not a Mac person, were very laughable.
>
> Microsoft's intent in developing and maintaining distinct file formats,
> as much as possible, is anti-competitive; it is not an efficiency of the
> market, as you seem to presume by putting it this way.
A market with no discernable competition is pretty damned efficient , for
the monopolists anyway.
>
> [...]
> >> That's not a technological argument.
> >>
> >> That's not even an engineering argument.
> >
> >It's a market dominance argument.
>
> Well, technically there is a rather important difference between market
> dominance and monopolization, you see. And, yes, this contradiction of
> technological justification for development which decreases the value of
> the product to the consumer is a tell-tale, in fact.
The net result is the same regardless of what words you use to describe it.
A monopolist dominates the market by virtue of exclusive control over it.
They don't have to concentrate on innovations and actually make their
products better. This is their weak point too as most monopolies become big,
bloated and inflexable. They lose the ability to innovate. The situation is
a lot like trench warfare in WWI. They fortify their position so that
crossing no-man's land becomes so dangerous that they're in no danger of
being extricated. Eventually, someone like the British come along with this
thing called a "tank" and extricate them...quickly.
>
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: 20 Jan 2001 11:41:49 -0600
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <M6ha6.1011$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
>> computer when you halt the OS.
>>
> Where have you been? I don't know about FreeBSD, but Linux does shut
> down the computer when you halt.
FreeBSD has this feature as well:
REBOOT(8) FreeBSD System Manager's Manual REBOOT(8)
NAME
reboot, halt, fastboot, fasthalt - stopping and restarting the system
[...]
-p The system will turn off the power if it can. This is of course
likely to make reboot rather similar to halt.
I can understand where Erik is coming from, though. Surely, only an advanced
OS like Windows would support such a feature. ;-)
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:58:17 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:47:07 GMT, "Tom Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Copy protection routines for C64's actually did a lot to damage the 1541
>floppy drives. That was indicative of the drive's bad design more than
>anything, though.
Heat was the basic enemy of the 1541 along with the half tracking of
the stepper motor.
I also had an Enhancer 2000 drive with my Commodore and that worked
great with none of the 1541's troubles.
>
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:43:36 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <94c6mh$6h2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
> This is *very* accurate.
> If he will install windows, he will need a LILO boot disk, because RH
> wouldn't boot because Windows will overwrite the MBR.
> He will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR if he wish to use Linux.
Your reply is inaccurate and confusing. A boot disk with his linux
kernel is all that is required although a disk with lilo will boot
faster. He will not have to reinstall lilo if he has a boot disk
although it makes sense to do so. Please try and be accurate and not
make a big issue out of such a trivial matter.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
