Linux-Advocacy Digest #642, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: VMWare? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (J Sloan)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (spicerun)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("JS PL")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("JS PL")
Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Poor Linux (.)
Re: Crappy CDROM? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:16:57 +0000
Tim wrote:
> On the other hand I bet you have no intention to make a profession out
> of driving, or even be slightly better then average if you have nointerest
> in how your car works.
Most people don't.
> Put the "car" picture into perspective. If you were just driving your
> car you would get some one else to design it, construct it, service it,
> and repair it whenever anything went wrong, even to the point of not being
> able to fit your own stereo.
That's pretty much what happens now. Although I usually fit my own stereos
8).
> If you want to program a computer, or be able to carry out some
> maintenance on a server, then you should be reasonably competent,
> otherwise get someone else to do it who will do a much better job of it
> than you. Windows is designed for people who "don't want to see the
> moving parts", someone who is just happy to click OK without even reading
> what's in the box, not for a competent programmer.
Ah, but I want to be able to program Windows, but do I need to know how it
works internally? Someone hear told me I needed to understand how
scheduling worked in order to write an application. I've been a Software
Engineer since 1982, and I rarely need to delve that deep into system level
stuff.
Since I started some time ago on GUI's my need for understanding the
mechanics of systems has shifted away from internals - at least until I was
doing RPC, system services and multithreaded applications. Even then, I
just needed to know enough WIN32 to do all that.
Writing stuff for CORBA and SQL still didn't require any great knowledge of
how the internals worked.
Getting speed is about the only area I can think of where how the system
works does become important. Writing GUI's rarely requires speed - except
for a 3D scene editor I created myself.
Now I write device drivers, yes, I need to know a lot more about the
internals of how things work. Yet, I don't need to know how the scheduler
works to know how to write a device driver.
Windows Audio WDM drivers have become black boxes with COM style interfaces
defining everything. All the stream handling is done above the driver, all
it needs to do is associate a stream with a hardware stream, and talk to
the hardware, handle interrupts etc.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VMWare?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:01:21 +0100
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> I'm considering the VMWare Express package to help me over "the
> application barrier". I'm wondering if the performance hit that I've
> heard about is just with the Windows apps, or will the 'thin layer
> between hardware and OS' that VMWare talks about slow down Linux itself?
>
I can only report from the nornal Vmware, which will also allow NT / W2k to
be installed instead of only W9x / ME. But I suspect the numbers are fairly
the same.
CPU-bound processes run nearly with same speed.
Processes needing to redraw lots will suffer most (about half to 2/3 speed)
Disk-I/O can actually be faster (Vmware's disks are Linux-files, so speed
depends on linux filesystem speed.). In my own setup, Disk-I/O blows a real
windows on a comparable machine out of the water.
So, it depends on what you want to do, but in my opinion Vmware is quite
good. On my main system it has completely eliminated the need to dual-boot,
if there is a need to run windows, it will run happily inside an X-window,
which, by the way, can be displayed on a machine different from the one
running vmware, like all normal X-Progs.
One caveat, so: If you want to do sound-processing, forget it. playing
wav-files is OK, MIDI already is not. And (up to now, no CD-burning). But
that is done quite nicely in linux, thank you.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:01:17 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > Maybe you should, just for a change, read the magazine you are
> > criticizing?
>
> Please show me an article in c't that is favorable to Microsoft.
>
> Just one.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -Chad
>
in a different thread Chad Myers wrote:
> I refuse to participate in that. I'm sure you would as well.
> If you want to argue, then let's argue on facts and merit, not
> supposition.
Well, I showed him an article (just ONE, like he asked, but easily could
have been hundreds, since I have every c't which ever was published)
Chad's reaction: NULL, ZERO, nothing. The facts do not take into account
the Chad-Myers-effect, so they can be ignored, safely.
After all, Chad only want's to argue based on FACTS, MERIT and not
supposition.
Chad, you are just a stinking liar, if the facts don't suit you, you ignore
them or brazingly interpret them. You have not ONCE admitted to be in
error, even when you clearly were. You aren't worth my time, not even the
time of my news-reader, so from now on I'll killfile you.
Just go back playing with your Wintendo-thingy, will you. When youre grown
up, just knock.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:19:59 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> Sorry to shock you with the facts old chap, but it nearly always
> goes the other way - people try Linux, then get into it, and finally
> reformat their windows drive for mp3 storage or something of a
> similar nature.
I guess I must be one of the exceptions. I still like Windows and find most
things I need to do are better done on that platform.
Though when Kylix comes out (rumoured to be 31st Jan) that may change my
mind. I can port across some of the things I use on Windows to Linux.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 21 Jan 2001 22:30:57 GMT
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And yet, millions of us use Windows all day, every day, with no problems.
Perhaps, but I've never met a single one.
: I
: have three machines, one running NT and two running Win2k. In the past year,
: they've had two unexpected crashes. The Unix box on my desk, from a highly
: respected Unix workstation vendor, has crashed once during the same time. My
: personal experience isn't unique. We now run somewhere around 300 NT
: machines at my site, and have no outstanding OS issues.
Knowing the issues I've had with *every* NT installation I've worked
with, that just seems difficult for me to believe.
Granted, I do find NT to be stable enough for desktop/workstation use,
provided that someone clueful is installing the software and avoiding
DLL Hell issues.
But given that I still spend 20% of my time rebooting, fixing registry
corruption, and tracking down problems attributable to bugs either in
NT or in Mafia$oft development tools, I can't buy the idea that there
are "no outstanding OS issues."
: As I mentioned, we run 300 NT machines, and have virtually no problems with
: NT4. Our biggest single problem, by a large margin, is with Netscape, which
: crashes regularly. Since more and more of our critical applications now
: involve accessing databases over browser based interfaces, this has been a
: real problem. On the Unix side of things, it's even worse. Unix Netscape has
: lagged way behind the PC versions, and for a long time we've either been
: unable to run the applications or had terrible reliability. Until a few
: months ago, Unix users have been unable to use the travel reservation system
: or the expense reporting system at all.
I've noticed that in my experience at least Netscape *never* crashes
when browsing Web pages, but very frequently crashes when attempting
to parse nonstandard "HTML."
The solution: use standard HTML.
Side benefit: all other browsers, even IE, will still be able to view
the same content.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:31:10 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > But you know how to use them all. You figured them all out with no
> > problem. So it really is quite a trivial matter if they don't actually
> > affect your work.
>
> True, but it kinda makes a mockery of a desktop on Linux. With one
> application it works one way, with another, yet another...
Linux users aren't dummies. We're all capable of being able to use
load/save dialogs which look different. I really don't see this as a
problem.
The apps may all look slightly different, but they have a huge amount of
common ground. Going from one to the other is very easy (for non
dummies---and Linux users tend not to be dummies).
I don't see how the desktop metaphor of everything uniform extends from
a real desktop. here I have some pens which you push to make the inky
bit come out, others you take the top off. My graphical calculator works
completely differently from my semi-RPN (ie like most scientific)
calculator. Humans are perfectly capable of adapting[*] to different
things.
-Ed
* The wierd thing is that when you put some people in a computer, all
mental capabilitites seem to be removed. But I think most Linux users
aren't like that.
--
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: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:37:34 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I guess I must be one of the exceptions. I still like Windows and find most
> things I need to do are better done on that platform.
That's fine, and nobody will take your windows away, no fear.
> Though when Kylix comes out (rumoured to be 31st Jan) that may change my
> mind. I can port across some of the things I use on Windows to Linux.
I'm looking forward to that myself.
jjs
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:50:29 -0600
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> spicerun wrote:
>
>> I suspect, in his case, he wasn't an Electronics Engineer long enough to
>> really understand devices (and got very frustrated)
>> ....in fact, that's probably the reason he switched to Software, so that
>> he wouldn't have to understand Hardware.
>
>
> Naaah.
>
> I did design and build my own 6809 machine, write my own bios, create a 64k
> dynamic RAM board and it worked first time, put together a floppy disk
> controller (hardware and software)...
Why would someone write a bios for a 6809 Machine? Apple didn't even
have a bios per se on their 6502 machines.....
They did however have firmware and some embedded routines and drivers
(never guaranteed to be resident at the same
location) running on their machine, but they never made those routines
(at least intentionally) accessible as would be seen
in a 'bios'. In fact, on Apple's old machines, drivers weren't in their
OS until you plugged in the interface card to the
peripheral (ie - driver was on a rom on the card).
I get the distinct feeling that what you are calling a bios is really
boot code and embedded drivers. It isn't the same
thing.
What has gotten you into the mode of thinking only in bioses and only
the Microsoft way (Especially if you were building
your own Motorola-type platform machines that have no similiarities with
the intel-type platforms)? I gotta tell you,
it makes you look really bad as a microprocessor hardware/software
person, and, reflects badly on other engineers who also
build their own processor hardware and write the firmware for them.
Just for your Info...before you start flaming....I'm one of those guys
that make a living designing Microprocessor systems, building,
troubleshooting, and writing the firmware for them...and, depending on
the customer, either make a proprietary OS or use an available
OS specified by the customer. I've designed 6502, 8086, 68020, and 604e
PowerPC Systems, and wrote the firmware for them.
I think mlw has done all of this too.
> You seem to be equating Windows fan with inferior mind.
All I have to do is see the Windows Fans/Advocates around my place at
work. Interesting as an NT machine freezes up how they
say there's something wrong with the machine because NT doesn't do
that. Only problem with that is that just about every
machine at work has froze at one point or another. These Winvocates are
arrogant, loud, and pathetic and it is a pain to have
to deal with them in person.
>
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:50:56 -0500
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:23:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I would expect that Linux has had automount for a number of years. Can
> >>somebody confirm this?
> >
> > You'll know for yourself in a week or so.
> >
>
> Or you could just tell him the truth. automount works fine on linux and
> has for quite some time.
Why I stay away from Linux as much as possible!
Doing four times as much key pounding as is needed under Windows, just to
accomplish the same thing.
Case in point, after installing Linux to run under VMware here's the
directions for improving the graphics et. al.by installing the VMare tools:
<paste>
As root, mount the VMware Tools floppy, copy the contents of the floppy to
/tmp, and unmount the floppy.
cd /
mount -t vfat /dev/fd0 /mnt
cp /mnt/vmware-linux-tools.tar.gz /tmp
umount /dev/fd0
Untar the VMware Tools tar file in /tmp, and install it.
cd /tmp
tar zxf vmware-linux-tools.tar.gz
cd vmware-linux-tools
./install.pl
Start X and your graphical environment if they are not started yet.
In an X terminal, launch the VMware Tools background application.
vmware-toolbox &
The VMware Tools background application may be run as root or as a normal
user. The application will have additional capabilities if run as root.
*****
*****
And now the instructions for Windows:
Double-click the My Computer icon on your desktop.
Double-click the A: device.
Double-click VMwareTools.exe and follow the instructions.
</paste>
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:04:05 GMT
JS PL wrote:
> "Why I stay away from Linux as much as possible!
> As root, mount the VMware Tools floppy, copy the contents of the floppy to
> /tmp, and unmount the floppy.
> cd /
> mount -t vfat /dev/fd0 /mnt
> cp /mnt/vmware-linux-tools.tar.gz /tmp
> umount /dev/fd0
Actually, those are the instructions for the mentally challenged.
If you knew anything about Linux, you'd simply type:
mcopy a:* /tmp
Jokes on you, wintroll!
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:20:27 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Then 1 out of 3 times that
> > > blasted thing manages to find a new Ethernet card and installs it a
second
> > > time, rendering Network inoperable. You have to remove those bogus
entries
> > > AND install that damn card again.
> >
> > This sounds like a flaky PnP or ACPI bios to me. Windows uses the BIOS
to
> > detect the hardware. If the BIOS is telling windows there's a new card
> > there, it'll try and detect it.
>
> Have you ever admitted that anything was Windows' fault? A while back
> when the trolls were whining about Linux being unable to always detect >
> 64M of ram due to bad BIOS, you said it was the fault of Linux because
> Win could do it properly. Now we have windows screwing up because of bad
> BIOS (but not Linux) but this time its NOT the OS's fault, because the
> os is Windows.
There's a difference here. In the flaky PnP or ACPI bios, the bios claims
to do something properly that it isn't. Since the BIOS says it's PnP or
ACPI, windows believes it. In the memory detection problem, it's simply an
old bios that didn't know about larger memory. It's easy to tell if the
BIOS supports larger memory or not, and the OS should know this.
> > > Well, this has no direct connection with
> > > shutdown, but would not occur if MicroShit had done their job a little
> > > better. But then again, why do they have to do that FUCKING hardware
> > > detection every power on??
> >
> > Because you might have added new hardware? That's kind of the point.
>
> No one I know adds new hardware every time they switch the computer on.
When do you suggest would be a good time to detect the hardware? Keep in
mind that most end-users don't know what they're doing.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:22:50 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> > But you would have no way of knowing that I lie when I say that in
approx.
> > 11 months my Win2K OS has crashed exactly "once".
> > Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on my own.
>
> Here is the problem, when you say 11 months, that may mean that you turn
> it off every night and boot it every morning. It is unlikely that you
> will see a problem. If, as you say, you have seen it crash once, then
> this is significant in this configuration, and falls well within the
> MTTF study.
I don't turn it off every night. It runs constantly, it usually runs for
10-30 day spans before being shut down for one reason or another.
Now if my dial up to a Unix server could be so stable. I usually can't stay
connected for more than 48 hrs!!
Last time I shut it down was to install a modem that Linux could understand.
Sometimes it's just because I fucked it up the network settings so bad that
it's easier to just bring back the HD mirror from a spanned 3 cd set (1hr)
than to fix it. Sometimes its just that I'm bored and install a different OS
on the one HD. Last week for instance I (attempted ) an install of
windows1.1 for shits and giggles. So it was rebooted then too. The things I
do to this system aren't what I'd call "best practices" for ANY operating
system. But so far Win2k has withstood the most abuse, and the actual
operating system has crashed ONCE. I've had the CD stop responding a couple
times trying to read a dirty disk or trying to burn to on poor media. I just
kill the process and move on. Outlook used to stop responding until logoff
and back on until I fixed the (non-os related) problem.
> > You've never had any experience with Windows 2000 in your life except
what
> > you've read.
>
> Actually the term "in your life" is at best hyperbole, 2K has only been
> released for a short time.
And Max acts at least two years old. So that would fall within his lifetime.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:34:36 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Jerry,
>
> > I want to gather information on the compatibility of Motherboards on
> > Linux.
>
> Virtually all motherboards that work with Windows work with Linux. It
would
> be much easier to concentrate on obtaining information about those
> motherboards that currently have problems.
Sort of true. Any motherboard that uses the i810 chipset won't work
properly with Linux 2.2.x, you need the 2.4 kernel and so far there are no
shipping versions of Linux that include it. Yes, you can upgrade, but it
takes some work. The problem here is the shared system/video memory. You
either need a GART patch, or 2.4.
> As at September 1999 virtually no motherboard was unsupported:
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Hardware-HOWTO-2.html#ss2.1
Linux itself will work, but if you try to use graphical applications, it
won't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 21 Jan 2001 23:37:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2001 19:23:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>> Tascam?
>>
>>Yes, we are of course discussing home studio engineering hardware, no?
> Somewhat.
> My studio "is" in my home.
> Where is yours located.
>>> You've just proven how much you know about the subject :(
>>
>>Indeed. The D-8000 sure is a piece of shit. As is the entire M series.
> I never said that, you did.
> They are digital domain mixers that have that "digital sound" to them.
> Nothing wrong with that, but I prefer analog at that end of the price
> spectrum because instead of all the toys that break, like motorized
> faders, you get warm sounding pre-amps and controls, especially with
> the Ghost.
You do realize, sweetheart, that the mackie model you mentioned is a DIGITAL
machine, dont you?
Of course you do. You just didnt read the whole description on their webpage
before you mentioned it.
And everyone who knows anything at all about sound engineering knows that
at *any* point that an analog to digital conversion takes place, you've lost
the reason you used analog in the first place; it becomes pointless.
So for the applications that youve said you use this equipment for, you do
not need analog; its moot and pointless.
>>Oh, and you seem to have mentioned Mackie. :)
> Good board for sub-mixing.
Its nice for alot of things, just not your application. Try again.
> Quiet pre-amps and basic straight wire gain
> structure. Has no character to it though and that is why some people
> don't like them. You'll be hard pressed to find a studio without at
> least one around.
I know of a half dozen with none around. And theyre actual studios too, theyre
not "home studios" like yours.
>>I am certian that you do not own an 8B, because piddling sound-enthousiasts
>>who live in cheap houses on the wrong side of the "hamptons tracks" cannot
>>afford one.
> 1.There is no wrong side of the tracks in the Hampton's.
Yes, yes there are.
> 2. Both the Ghost and Allen Heath cost more than the Mackie.
Both of which you do not own either.
>>You may want to stick with tascam. At least thats a lie I could believe.
> I have 2 Tascam DAT recorders and an old Tascam 80-8 Reel to Reel and
> a Tascam Cassette deck.
> Does that count?
No.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crappy CDROM?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:45:31 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here's one for you:
>
> I have a dual processor system, and a Promise IDE66 card. I have a CDROM
> and a CDWR on one channel, and a hard disk on the other. The IDE ports
> on the MOBO are also filled.
>
> If I do this:
>
> cat /dev/cdrom > file.iso
>
> cat /dev/cdrom | cmp file.iso
>
> (With the file on a MOBO controlled disk) It runs until end of file,
> with no errors.
>
>
> If, while I am doing that, I copy a big file from one drive to the drive
> on the promise card, I get compare errors.
Thanks for backing up my point that IDE CD-R's are unreliable.
Yes, IDE is a very poor technology. The only reason it sells so much is
that it's cheap. SCSI requires onboard processors for the drive, and makes
them more expensive.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:50:13 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Hmm, you know, it's ironic. When the 65K number came out for Win2K,
> >> >it was a.) grossly inflated, b.) included feature requests and feature
> >> >change requests c.) included other products and projects related to
> >Win2K.
> >>
> >> Hmm, you know, that's interesting. Because all three of those are
> >> baseless suppositions that have already been refuted here. It was MS's
> >> own number, it did not include feature requests (but "real issues"),
and
> >> it was exclusively the OS.
> >
> >No, it's not. You are entirely baseless here Max.
> >
> >From the original article:
> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
> >
> >"According to the Microsoft memo, the Windows 2000 source-code base
> >contains:
> >
> [...]
> >> No, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Its *not* OK to lie
> >> about W2K and completely misrepresent facts, and we'd appreciate it if
> >> you'd stop doing it.
> >
> >You're lying about it (as I just proved), so why the dual standard?
>
> Your brains are leaking out, again, Erik. "According to Microsoft..."
> is pretty much like saying "if you are dumb enough to believe it..."
In other words, the only proof you have that the 65,000 bugs did not include
feature requests is your suspicion of anything MS does, right?
In case you didn't notice, this was not a response from some PR spin wizard,
it was taken from the original internal memo that was sent to the Win2k
team.
> >> >b.) It's not ok to take a concrete number from Debian's site and
repeat
> >> > it as fact
> >>
> >> Again, you seem to have inverted the message. The number on Debian's
> >> site is known to include all software shipped with the distribution.
> >
> >And MS's bug list includes all software shipped with it as well.
>
> Then what happened to "the Windows 2000 source-code base
> contains:"?
What are you talking about?
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:45:46 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Sort of true. Any motherboard that uses the i810 chipset won't work
> properly with Linux 2.2.x, you need the 2.4 kernel and so far there are no
> shipping versions of Linux that include it.
You can bop over to rawhide and grab an rpm of 2.4 -
then rpm -ivvh kernel-2.4... etc.
But I prefer to select my own kernel build options.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:47:53 GMT
JS PL wrote:
> I don't turn it off every night. It runs constantly, it usually runs for
> 10-30 day spans before being shut down for one reason or another.
> Now if my dial up to a Unix server could be so stable. I usually can't stay
> connected for more than 48 hrs!!
So you got windoze ppp to stay up as long as 48 hours? bravo.
> Last time I shut it down was to install a modem that Linux could understand.
In other words, a modem (not a silly "winmodem")
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:53:46 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:07:46 -0500;
> [...]
> >I haven't run accross ANY of the supposed 64,000 bugs in Win2k in 11
months.
>
> Sure you have; you just didn't recognize it. Think back to the last
> time an app crashed repeatedly, but then ran fine after a reboot.
> That's the OS's fault. Consider how many 'driver problems' you've run
> into. Those are the OS's fault.
Driver problems are not the OS's fault unless it was a driver written by MS,
and even then it's MS's fault, not the OS.
Additionally, a program that crashes repeatedly may not be the OS's fault at
all. You may have a locked resource, and the program doesn't error check
well enough to realize that. Rebooting will cause the resource to be freed
(for instance, you might have a program running that locks the file. You
could kill the offending program as well).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
