Linux-Advocacy Digest #787, Volume #31 Sun, 28 Jan 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft is fired. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT (Charlie Ebert)
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT (Charlie Ebert)
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF xxxx (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Sound a networks (Darren Winsper)
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows *PATCH*. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Sound a networks (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sound a networks (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sound a networks (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sound a networks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:05:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock wrote:
>In article <GPrc6.1008$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Just a few? How many is a few? Apple II, Commodore 64, PET, trs-80,
>> color computer, Altair, TS-1000/ZX-81, Unisys A and B systems, CDC Cyber
>> systems, Cray I, II, III, XMP and YMP, ETA 1, Connection Machines,
>> RS-6000, AS/400, IBM System 36/38, Any number of VAX systems, IBM 43xx,
>> Tandems, HP 9000, Psion...
>>
>
>Linux certainly does run on RS/6000 and AS/400. Where have you been?
>This has been one of the big reasons for IBM moving to Linux - a single
>OS thats supports it's four major machine architectures - RS/6000, AS/400,
>S/390, and i386.
>
>Gary
I need some help Gary.
Would you put the site up which has the RS/6000 port.
I might need that. I couldn't find that earlier to show
somebody.
Would you please post it here and I'll write it down.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:07:01 GMT
In article <oVTc6.4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > > I'm willing to bet that a lot of virus-writers have had access
>> > > to Windows code for YEARS
>> >
>> > Oh yeah, high school kids are so well known for keeping secrets.
>>
>> Open sand, insert head.
>>
>> Do you really think k1dd135 are the only people with an interest in other
>> people's systems?
>
>Did you even read the message? He said specifically "VIRUS WRITERS". As we
>all know, VIrus writers tend to be high school and college kids for the most
>part. They work by glomming onto each others work and modifying each others
>code. If said virus writers were all harboring the source code to windows,
>there'd be thousands of people trying to keep it secret. Not going to
>happen.
>
Actually 12 year olds have been known to take down entire communitys
of Wintrolls.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:07:59 +0000
> Bad goods? Exactly which products produced by Microsoft are bad? And
Windows 9X are bad goods. They are unreliable and break easily. IMO, NT
is not very good either. Look at the MTTF.
DOS was years behind the times.
Word was (I haven't tried the latest versions) buggy and unreliable, and
ormatting was nothing short of a nightmare. Hell, even Notepad was bad
(very limited file size).
IE is a nasty mess (I don't care if netscape is bad too, that does nto
make IE better).
The lack of configurability and the remote admin capabilities of windows
have been years behind (although I've been told that 2K has addressed
some of these problems) decent OSs.
There is virtually no interpolability between MS products and other
products, especially on other operating systems.
Until recently, there was little interpolability between different MS
osen. NT couldn't read FAT 32.
The example code provided by MS for DirectX is full of uneeded gotos.
None of the recent OSs have shipped with programming languages.
98 was esentially a bugfix on 95. And they charged for it. Disgusting.
> which products are superior?
Excel is not too bad. Powrepoint is OK for very dynamic presentations,
but for less dynamic ones, there are nicer looking alternatives.
> Linux is great as a server, but for the
yep.
> consumer, forget it. Linux is light-years from being a consumer
> product.
That doesn't make MS products better. Besides, a modern preinstalled
distro with some office package is fine for a consumer OS. Anyway, MacOS
is a much better consumer product than any version of windows I've used.
I still stick to what I've said: they sold me bad good in the past and
expected me to pay to to get them fixed. I've taken my business
elsewhere, just like I have with anyone else who has sold me dodgy goods.
-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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:13:44 +0000
> I agree. No Microsoft product is going to kill Linux. But might I add
> that Linux is definitely "rock solid" as long as it is run at the
> command line. Add a GUI and it is not nearly as stable. Personally, I
True. I've had precicely no crashes in 2 years. But I've had X lock up
twice (I'm not counting times where I did stupid stuff as root) I use my
comuter pretty much every day. It is still ver stable when running with a
GUI. In fact, the X crashes didn't require a reboot.
> use Red Hat Linux 7 on my laptop and have found it to be quite good, but
> crashes do happen. Although I would have no problem running it as a
> server from the command line, W2K is much more stable in an GUI
> environment.
I disagree. I have found X to be very stable.
> But I must say, RH7 is 1000 times better than when I
> used RH5.2. If the trend continues, Linux very well may catch up to
> Microsoft in this regard. I certainly hope so.
RH5.2 was very good. Still is. My system based on RH 5.2, and it works
very well.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:15:30 GMT
In article <94v84v$mr$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ralph Miguel Hansen wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>>
>snip
>>
>> 1) Get off your retarded ass...
>> 2) Take your maggot-infested brain to the rim of Muana Loa
>> snip
>Would you please be so kind to tell me who is Muana Loa ?
It is a volcano in Hawaii sir.
>I really don't know that.
>
>Keep smiling
>Ralph Miguel Hansen
>
>
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:16:29 GMT
In article <BRQc6.792$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
>> mlw wrote:
>
>>> I am having a bit of difficulty relating this thread to anything having to do
>>> with Linux advocacy.
>
>> Regard it as a pollution control technique.
>
>Impossible, considering how much pollution you're depositing.
>
>> I'm hoping to convince the walking toxic waste dump to remove himself
>> from the human gene pool.
>
>Talking to yourself, Kulkis?
>
I think we've found a volunteer to test NASA's new
space re-entry suit.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF xxxx
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:17:39 GMT
In article <2CJc6.43643$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>[incomprehensible Kulkis-ism and accompanying sig snipped]
>
>Am I the only one who wishes we could put Kulkis and Ebert together?
>
>In a rowboat.
>
>In the middle of the Atlantic.
>
>-- Mike --
>
>
>
We were actually planning on being Movie critics.
Sorry!
HA!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:19:04 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:IwSc6.21275$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Linux did not detect the second network card - does that mean that Linux
>> 2.2 does not support two network cards or it simply doesn't recognise the
>> card?
>
>
> Are they identical network cards (ie, do they use the same device driver)?
> If so, you have to tell Linux to use different IRQ's for them (nevermind
> that IRQ sharing is a feature of PCI 2.1, I don't know if the 2.4 kernel
> does this or not, but 2.2 certainly doesn't seem to).
Err...the 2.2 kernel *does* support IRQ sharing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows *PATCH*.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:21:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>Here we go again, it was less than a year ago that the Windows zealots were
>saying Win2K would kill Linux, yada, yada, yada.
>
>What did we get? 120 day MTTF. LOL.
>
>Now whistler, how quickly the Windows zealots dropped and ran from Win2K, the
>product they once so vehemently defended and promoted. This is just another
>example of the, "This (version, service pace) is rock solid, unlike that last
>(version, service pack)."
>
>"Rock Solid" Windows, lol, never happen, and we have the statistical evidence
>of every single previous version (service pack) to which "rock solid" had been
>applied.
>
>The best of their best has a tested MTTF of 120 days. A "rock solid" OS should
>have a MTTF that is virtually infinite.
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
They've been watching too many Chevy commercials.
Like a Rock.
If Windows were a boat it would be like a rock.
If Windows were a plane it would be like a rock.
If Windows were a car it would be like a rock.
If Windows were on a PC it would be like a rock.
Windows supporters are typically middle aged fat asses.
And if it's users drove Pontiacs, they'd be on the wide track.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:23:32 +0000
In article <2nXc6.249$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tholes Tholen:
>
>> >>> 1) Get off your retarded ass...
>>
>> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I have a "retarded ass" to
> get
>> >> off of, Kulkis.
>>
>> > You're sitting on it, retard.
>>
>> Still making the same erroneous presupposition, even after I
> called
>> your attention to it.
>
> Still incapable of understanding Kulkis, I see, Tholen. Let's just say
> Kulkis sees things correctly, if stridently.
AAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Its going to be another Tholen vs. Malloy thread.
Why don't you start up a group:
comp.tholen.vs.malloy
And argue away on that?
-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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:10:17 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > >
> > > If so, let's hope they have better luck than these people when they
> > > try to use Win2K for their enterprise application:
> > >
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
> >
> > Ah yes, the register. Constantly on the look out to make up stories
> > that show MS in a bad light.
> >
> > Of course, the obvious answer to this article is is that Delphi's
> > admins are incompetent. They choose some back-woods network card
> > that doesn't have good drivers (which, if I were them, I would switch
> > right then. If the company that I buy NICs from can't write stable
> > drivers, I don't want them as my NIC vendor any more).
> >
> You forget:
>
> a) That "good drivers" are available for low end performance, and not
> high end.
Intel makes damned good high-end server NICs and their drivers are
a perfect compliment. Anyone who knows anything typically uses these.
The ones that don't typically use 3COM, which is probably what happened
in this case.
> b) That there's more than drivers:
>
> <quote>
> Our mole adds: "According to the Microsoft's HCL, Hardware Compatibility
> List, on their web site, there are only 7 software suites certified to
> be compatible with Windows 2000 Advanced Server, the version that
> corporations will be using. No virus software, no system management
> software.
At the time of printing, I guess. The list has been updated several times.
Just because the software isn't on the list doesn't mean it won't run, it
just means that Microsoft's limited compatability lab is probably bogged
down with thousands of request. A problem, you'll note, that doesn't exist
on Linux because there aren't thousands of applications to test, and
no one is testing them in the first place.
> "Although IBM DB2 and MS SQL are certified recently, Oracle, SAP, Access
> and hundreds of common software are not. No wonder W2K looks
> increasingly like Windows 3.0, waiting for Whistler to really launch it
> as a network platform for corporations."
No bias there.
> He claimed: "Microsoft has not released any figures on corporation W2K
> server migration figures, almost a year after its release. The fact is,
> there are significant interoperability problems with other software,
> with driver availability, with skills scarcity, not to mention the
> tremendous learning curve and cost of change of implementating W2K,
> which is so different and so complicated that most corporations seems to
> want to wait for Whistler instead."
> </quote>
>
> So much for the "enterprise ready" W2k.
This is all heresay and actually bullshit. It's obvious this guy,
who, by the way, works for Borland (a hated enemy of MS no less) has
a bone to pick. So much so, that he's willing to expose his own
incompetence with the product to put it forth.
Many successful companies (Dell, NASDAQ, Lycos, and many others)
are using Win2K quite successfully and more successfully than NT 4.0.
This guy really is just an idiot.
> > Suddenly bad drivers means the OS is bad. Shall I print you a list
> > of drivers that I have had problems with on Linux? Does this make
> > Linux unusable now? Somehow, when drivers are bad on Linux, it's
> > ok, it's the vendor's fault, but then they're bad on Windows,
> > it's Windows' fault, right?
>
> Wasn't a Windows argument the lack of drivers on Linux?
Lack of, not quality of. There are poor quality drivers on both
platforms.
> When I pay thousands of $ for an OS I ask much more from vendor, if you
> don't mind.
Right, it's the vendor's fault, I totally agree. But that's why you
go with more reputible high-quality vendors like Intel and the like.
These guys must have bought bargin-bin NICs (which makes sense since they
don't seem to be making much money these days) and then blamed
their own incompetence and their poor choice in NICs on Microsoft.
It's interesting you guys bring this up as an argument. This really means
that you have no argument.
If I were attacking Linux and an article came out like this in the reverse,
I'd at least be half-way intelligent enough to recognize that this was
an operator error, not Linux's fault. I would expect the same from you guys,
but it appears that you are too desperate for a valid attack on Win2K that
you'll pick out anything that looks even remotely close. Pretty sad,
really.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:11:04 GMT
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > >> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> > > >> >>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
06:58:01
> > > >> > [...]
> > > >> >>>>I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into
that
> > size.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Databases.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single
file.
> > > >>
> > > >> There's that magic word: "convention".
> > > >>
> > > >> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
> > > >> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
> > > >> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
> > > >
> > > >Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
> > >
> > > No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
> > >
> > > I still don't, especially after you've broken down
> > > the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
> > > of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
> >
> > Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
> > 5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
> > the entire clip and work with it as a whole. Breaking it
> > up just to accomodate a poor choice of a poorly designed
> > OS only adds time and steps to a process that wouldn't
> > ordinarily be there.
>
> Don't forget that until recently you couldn't digitise video on an Apple
> Mac Avid beyond the capacity of one stripe, about 15 minutes at AVR77 for
> your average 28 gig disk pair, without stopping.
It's pretty sad that even the retarded MacOS is superior in quality
and strength to Linux.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:12:20 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ERKc6.99$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:02:04 GMT, Chad Myers
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> When we install the 2.4.x kernal and associated libraries to enable
> > > > >> >2Gb file support, we do *not* have to reformat any disk partitions
> > > > >> to make the change effective.
> > > >
> > > > > What about the applications? Don't most of them have to be rewritten
> > > > > to support the new method?
> > > >
> > > > No, they just have to be _recompiled_, nor _rewritten_. If you knew
> > > > anything at all about computers or software, you would understand why.
> > >
> > > No, they have to be rewritten to use off_t and lseek, rather than fseek or
> > > ftell. If the application was originally written to use lseek, then it's
> > > possible to recompile, but few developers actually do that.
> >
> > One example that we always use (you know, since they claim that
> > Linux is enterprise-ready) is Oracle on Linux. You can't recompile
> > Oracle, so you'll just have to wait until the next version, and
> > maybe, just maybe, Oracle will be nice and include its support for
> > the >2GB files, but maybe not. I'm sure there are a dozen or so
> > other applications that will have this problem.
> >
> > That's just the little piece that they never tell you when they say,
> > "Linux supports >2GB files! You're an idiot for saying any less!".
>
> But Oracle does work with >2GB files. :)
On Linux? Oh yeah, that's right, with their own filesystem on their
own partition, an attempt to bypass the brain-dead design flaws of
Linux.
> (and you don't need to use that feature anyway because Oracle is a
> real RDBMS)
I agree, but the option wouldn't be there in Linux without the
home-built filesystem option. Yet another limitation that impedes
Linux.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:38:39 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Are they identical network cards (ie, do they use the same device
> driver)? If so, you have to tell Linux to use different IRQ's for them
> (nevermind that IRQ sharing is a feature of PCI 2.1, I don't know if the
> 2.4 kernel does this or not, but 2.2 certainly doesn't seem to).
They're completely different cards.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:42:12 +0000
Mig wrote:
> Pleasepost the producent and modem of Network cards and the same for the
> sound card. This way this "bug" could be reused by other wintrolls.
Product and model I assume you mean. One is a Netgeat (tulip driver) the
other is D-Link. The first is configured and works fine. The second works
on Windows 98 SE (well, the driver works - since it's no plugged in
anywhere I can't tell if it can send/receive).
> Off course youre a game developer... cant you even solve a basic hardware
> problem? Why even brag about that you cant solve it?
I'm merely pointing out that I got a hang on Linux, and after rebooting, X
was dead.
Several hours later, it works fine. How bizarre can it get?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:43:14 +0000
Ian Pulsford wrote:
> You probably have a lock file in your /tmp directory you tool.
Perhaps, but why didn't it say so?
As in "lock file blah-blah locked" etc.
I saw some error codes and was going to make a record of them later.
However... it's all working again. How bizarre.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:44:51 GMT
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:32:24 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I switched to a Linux supported sound card.
So you downgraded your system to run Linux.
Too bad :(
>I also added a second network card.
Ok.
>Windows 98 SE detected both, but had no drivers for them. I installed them
>later and everything was working fine.
Emphasis on "Working Fine".
>Linux detected the sound card but didn't actually appear to configure it. I
Of course it didn't configure it for you because Linux is all about
choice.
In this case you get to choose from all of those wonderful irq's and
DMA channels and ports for your card.
Isn't choice wonderful!!
>ran sndconfig and heard a badly distorted sound sample.
My guess is that badly distorted sample is the head Penguinista Linux
himself.
It is normal for that to be distorted because it was poorly recorded
to begin with.
> Strange! I started
>up X and KDE 2.0 launched with a pleasant startup sound. Hmm, so that works
>after all.
Will wonders never cease.
>Linux did not detect the second network card - does that mean that Linux
>2.2 does not support two network cards or it simply doesn't recognise the
>card?
You have some kind of IRQ conflict, most likely with your sound card.
Remember that "choice" I was talking about?
You chose the wrong one :(
But there is always the chance you have you have an oddball card.
Here comes that choice again. You get to pick from a list of Network
chip sets. Not cards, but chipsets. You of course know what chipset is
on your network card do you not?
Problem is, you can't always figure it out because the chips may not
have identifying markings on them (Linksys does this on some cards)
and you will have to make a guess.
Isn't choice wonderful?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:47:49 +0000
mlw wrote:
> Here we go again, it was less than a year ago that the Windows zealots
> were saying Win2K would kill Linux, yada, yada, yada.
>
> What did we get? 120 day MTTF. LOL.
>
> Now whistler, how quickly the Windows zealots dropped and ran from Win2K,
> the product they once so vehemently defended and promoted. This is just
> another example of the, "This (version, service pace) is rock solid,
> unlike that last (version, service pack)."
>
> "Rock Solid" Windows, lol, never happen, and we have the statistical
> evidence of every single previous version (service pack) to which "rock
> solid" had been applied.
>
> The best of their best has a tested MTTF of 120 days. A "rock solid" OS
> should have a MTTF that is virtually infinite.
Ah yes. That explains why when I switched sound cards, add a new network
card, Linux + X freezes, then X refuses to restart after reboot. This is
the system I thought was more stable than Windows 9x/ME/2000 acting just
like Windows. How odd can it get.
Then after a few hours, it all works as if nothing happened. Again, just
like Windows.
Now, I don't know how stable Windows 2000 is, or Whistler will be (or may
not be), but it certainly is better than Windows 9x/ME. How much so
compared to Linux I was prepared to accept was much less... but in the
light of recent experiences, I'm not so sure.
Ah wait a minute. Linux itself is stable. Add X to it is the killer. That's
when it becomes unstable (or less stable).
--
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
******************************
