Linux-Advocacy Digest #839, Volume #31 Tue, 30 Jan 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Whistler predictions... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler predictions... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: LOL BSD gives Linux what for! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! (Mart van de Wege)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Illya Vaes)
Re: Sound a networks (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sound a networks (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all (Martin Eden)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:03:17 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:952j11$pml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> No, reducing retraining costs is what 9x is all about.
>
And, to an extent, it was the reason for why NT 4 was designed the way it
was. The fact that NT 4 (and Windows 2000) use the Windows 9x UI was to
ELIMINATE (to a large extent) OS retraining costs. Which they have, in
spades. Case in point: Comcast Cable Communications is the third largest
cable company in North America, and is practically a floor-to-ceiling
NT/2000 shop. Almost the entirety of the user base normally uses Windows 9x
away from the office. How much OS retraining has Comcast had to do? Answer:
NONE. The Customer Account Executives have "roaming profiles" that can
follow them all over the company, all over the country. When do they know
that they are NOT running 9x? When an application crashes, and they need
merely restart the offending application, rather than the whole OS. Two of
the more crash-prone applications run against a rather persnickety Oracle
database. When it crashes, the user merely restarts the app, rather than
reboot the whole OS, as they would have to under 9x. My own NT desktop has
rebooted a grand total of TWICE in three months (and one of those was due to
an application upgrade). Number of blue screens I have had: zero. Number
of application crashes: numerous (almost all in those applications running
against Oracle). Number of "forced reboots" due to an application crash:
ONE (and even that was due to Netscape Navigator slowing to a crawl, as
opposed to an outright crash). Even then, it didn't bluescreen; I rebooted
to "flush" both disk and memory caches in Netscape.
THAT is reliability.
Something NT users prove, day in and day out.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:20:36 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <_9Dc6.4711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> So my estimate of $648 is probably closer than your estimate of $411.
> >
> >What you seem to be doing is calculating this number by adding up
everything
> >they've ever spent on an OS, i.e in 1999 they buy NT 4 for X dollars then
in
> >2001 they upgrade to W2K for y dollers so the cost of W2K is x+y dollars
and
> >hence if the price for Whistler z dollars then Whistler price is x+y+z
which
> >is an interesting if warped way of looking at things.
> >
>
> It's true. If you examine NT release prices with W2k release prices,
> they have consistantly doubled the price of the full install with every
> release, they have consistently doubled the price of the upgrade with
> every release.
>
Balderdash. The price for upgrades from NT 4 to Windows 2000 is IDENTICAL
to upgrade prices from NT 3.5 to NT 4 (the nearest non-incremental upgrade).
NT 3.51 was a largely "point-release" upgrade from 3.5 (and was priced
accordingly; in fact, 98 SE used the same pricing scheme). Further, if
Windows 2000 Professional is so *overpriced*, why is it the FIRST version of
NT to sell OUTSIDE the intended business market at a greater than ten
percent clip? (Almost twenty percent of new Windows 2000 Profesional upgrade
and full-version licenses are for non-corporate users, and about a third of
this group are purchasing it for HOME use (as opposed to home-office use)!)
What drives this new group of Windows 2000 Pro customers?
1. Stability. Windows 2000 is more stable running typical applications than
Windows 98 SE or Windows ME.
2. No learning curve. In single-user mode, there is ZERO to learn as far as
the UI is concerned.
3. Ready for broadband. Despite what even Microsoft has to say about
Windows ME's broadband capabilities, Windows 2000 Professional is more ready
for broadband (xDSL and cable) connections than Windows ME.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:31:05 GMT
In article <9zud6.53251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher L. Estep wrote:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:952j11$pml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> No, reducing retraining costs is what 9x is all about.
>>
>And, to an extent, it was the reason for why NT 4 was designed the way it
>was. The fact that NT 4 (and Windows 2000) use the Windows 9x UI was to
>ELIMINATE (to a large extent) OS retraining costs. Which they have, in
>spades. Case in point: Comcast Cable Communications is the third largest
>cable company in North America, and is practically a floor-to-ceiling
>NT/2000 shop. Almost the entirety of the user base normally uses Windows 9x
>away from the office. How much OS retraining has Comcast had to do? Answer:
>NONE. The Customer Account Executives have "roaming profiles" that can
>follow them all over the company, all over the country. When do they know
>that they are NOT running 9x? When an application crashes, and they need
>merely restart the offending application, rather than the whole OS. Two of
>the more crash-prone applications run against a rather persnickety Oracle
>database. When it crashes, the user merely restarts the app, rather than
>reboot the whole OS, as they would have to under 9x. My own NT desktop has
>rebooted a grand total of TWICE in three months (and one of those was due to
>an application upgrade). Number of blue screens I have had: zero. Number
>of application crashes: numerous (almost all in those applications running
>against Oracle). Number of "forced reboots" due to an application crash:
>ONE (and even that was due to Netscape Navigator slowing to a crawl, as
>opposed to an outright crash). Even then, it didn't bluescreen; I rebooted
>to "flush" both disk and memory caches in Netscape.
>
>THAT is reliability.
>
>Something NT users prove, day in and day out.
>
>Christopher L. Estep
>
85% of the worlds databases run on Oracle.
Oracle spans not only the Microsoft world but most of the mainframe
world. Oracle has *PROVEN* experience. It's unquestionable.
I found this message quite cute.
How can a major database which runs across every kind of Mainframe
made, with the best track record of them all, be to blame for
your silly-ass problem with Windows???
Indeed, writing applications using Windows API is the problem.
It was never with Oracle.
And in the same breath the author mentions having trouble with
Netscape. We already know from court records that Microsoft
rigged all the API's and utilites Netscape ever used to make
their company look bad.
Truely the ONLY thing which runs well on a Microsoft OS is
indeed a Microsoft application. Doesn't that seem a little
fucking strange to you Christopher?
If you were to go into a REAL DATA CENTER and suggest that
Oracle be UNPLUGGED because you had trouble with your
Windows Application, they would laugh your butt right out
of the building. Oracle is the most highly tested,
high power database in the world today. It dominates the
mainframe world.
You mentioned your Oracle Database crashed? Do you know
what table damage is? Or are you just saying your API
crapped.
Out of the billions of bytes of information our Oracle
Database processes every day, I've never see it crash
on our mainframe. Not one time.
It's been working for the company for *YEARS* flawlessly.
Oracle has a tremendous track record with people who
process billions of records a day.
And I can ask my user base, when is the last time
they saw Oracle fail. The answer would be never.
Yet, I can ask anyone of them about the last experience
they had seeing Windows crash using Internet Explorer
or Outlook Express and they give me their stories.
I believe your stupid enough to believe Oracle is
*YOUR* problem. That's what's funny.
You don't know your head from your ass on anything.
And that's how Windows leaves people.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:32:50 GMT
In article <oPud6.53252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher L. Estep wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <_9Dc6.4711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nik Simpson wrote:
>> >
>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> So my estimate of $648 is probably closer than your estimate of $411.
>> >
>> >What you seem to be doing is calculating this number by adding up
>everything
>> >they've ever spent on an OS, i.e in 1999 they buy NT 4 for X dollars then
>in
>> >2001 they upgrade to W2K for y dollers so the cost of W2K is x+y dollars
>and
>> >hence if the price for Whistler z dollars then Whistler price is x+y+z
>which
>> >is an interesting if warped way of looking at things.
>> >
>>
>> It's true. If you examine NT release prices with W2k release prices,
>> they have consistantly doubled the price of the full install with every
>> release, they have consistently doubled the price of the upgrade with
>> every release.
>>
>
>Balderdash. The price for upgrades from NT 4 to Windows 2000 is IDENTICAL
>to upgrade prices from NT 3.5 to NT 4 (the nearest non-incremental upgrade).
>NT 3.51 was a largely "point-release" upgrade from 3.5 (and was priced
>accordingly; in fact, 98 SE used the same pricing scheme). Further, if
>Windows 2000 Professional is so *overpriced*, why is it the FIRST version of
>NT to sell OUTSIDE the intended business market at a greater than ten
>percent clip? (Almost twenty percent of new Windows 2000 Profesional upgrade
>and full-version licenses are for non-corporate users, and about a third of
>this group are purchasing it for HOME use (as opposed to home-office use)!)
>
>What drives this new group of Windows 2000 Pro customers?
>
>1. Stability. Windows 2000 is more stable running typical applications than
>Windows 98 SE or Windows ME.
>2. No learning curve. In single-user mode, there is ZERO to learn as far as
>the UI is concerned.
>3. Ready for broadband. Despite what even Microsoft has to say about
>Windows ME's broadband capabilities, Windows 2000 Professional is more ready
>for broadband (xDSL and cable) connections than Windows ME.
>
>Christopher L. Estep
>
>
>
Are *YOU* denying that the full install price of NT wasn't $189 at
CompUSA and the full install price of W2k isn't $350 at CompUSA????
Is this what your saying?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:50:31 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YJtd6.64679$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Figuring out a problem requires testing an awful lot of things
> > before even narrowing it down to a specific piece of hardware, and a
> > specific configuration. You don't know if it's a hardware failure, a
> > configuraiton failure, a NAP failure, etc..
>
> Traceroute tells you where the packets stop. Fix that box and you
> are usually done.
You have the benefit of hindsight. Knowing it was a router problem. To get
to that stage, you have to go through a lot of diagnosis. They probably
initially concentrated on the DNS servers. Whatever the problem, it's not
as black and white as you pretend it is.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LOL BSD gives Linux what for!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:42:38 -0600
"--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
> http://www.linux-sucks.com/
Feeling threatened?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:49:23 GMT
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was up
> and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends out
> to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
>
> So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
Oh?
I run @Home here on a dual-boot (soon to be quad-boot) Windows 98 SE/2000
Professional box (the added OSes will be Whistler and Linux-Mandrake 7.x
once a distro wtih 2.4 AND XFree86 4.0.2 ships). During install of Win2K
Pro, I entered my computer name for @Home and the workgroup name. Then I
simply configured the ICW to use a LAN connection and plugged in my mail and
news server settings. Automatic IP adressing and DHCP. No DNS. No WINS.
No automatic configuration or proxy servers. Instant warp-speed Internet
connection, instantly usable. On L-M, you CANNOT use the DHCP client (it
always fails to get the settings from the DHCP server on bootup, so I have
to configure everything statically). I did NOT use the @Home CD at all.
Easier than 98 SE or even Windows ME (both of which are easier than L-M,
even though you cannot use the DHCP client in SE or Windows ME).
Rock-solid stability, and no "fiddling" needed.
Christopher L. Estep
PS: I even updated my video card via said "instant Internet" connection: I
told it to pull the current certified AIW Radeon drivers via Windows Update
once said connection was up and running.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:40:13 +0000
From: Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> In article <954mbu$88j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
<snip a lot of stuff>
> It sickens me that an advocate would bother with such bullshit.
>
> But for once, I will appologize.
>
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>
>> Adam Warner
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
> The problem with giving them credibility by referencing *their*
>
> website sickens me Adam.
>
>
>
> Charlie
Charlie,
I quote from the original post: 'I don't want to spoil the
surprise. Suffice to say that Windows is far better advocated in
this forum than by Microsoft.'
With the likes of flatfish and Chad Myers in this group why in
the hell didn't you spot the sarcasm? Are you really that
humour-impaired?
Last time I checked satire was still fair use. I see nothing
wrong with quoting Microsoft to satirize them.
Lighten up man!
Mart
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:52:00 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows 2000 is no better, can't even install a browser without the need
to
> reboot.
>
> kiwiunixman
Which browser? If you are referring to IE 5.5 SP 1, you have a point;
however, this updates several critical DLL files used by both the OS and UI.
It is more akin to a kernel and X upgrade in Linux, which usually requires a
reboot (if not two).
Installing Netscape (any version) or Opera (or even Neoplanet) does not.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:56:37 -0600
J Sloan wrote:
> Spotted this today on the news - FYI
Yeah, it looks like Linux is the future of supercomputing, at least for the
next "generation" of IT.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:56:59 GMT
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Real kicker, that I forgot to mention, is that NT and W2K aren't even
> supported. If you call them they have a help option for NT, but not W2k.
> It gets lumped into "other Operating systems, estimated time of wait is
> 63 minutes". I only had to hold for 21 minutes for NT.
Then Earthlink is NOT a real ISP. Most ISPs (including Mindspring and even
AOHell) support Windows 2000 these days. @Home definitely does (I work for
Comcast @Home, and we SPECIFICALLY support Windows 2000), and you can
configure Windows 2000 to use @Home WITHOUT THE CD!
Plug in the computer name and workgroup during setup, and the mail and news
settings using ICW. All done. Utterly painless.
Christopher L. Estep
CAE-Online
Comcast @Home Silver Spring National Call Center
11800 Tech Road
Silver Spring, MD 20904
My opinions, not Comcast's or anyone else's.
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:57:11 +0100
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>StarOffice is bloated and unstable.
So's MS Office.
>It's also got a horrid user interface,
A straight knock-off of MS Office...
>and poor documentation.
Never seen documentation for Word97...
>OpenOffice is the above with even more bloat. (32mb instead of 27)
And how many MB's was MS Office again???
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:48:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm prepared to suspend judgement, but your endless
> woes just sound so improbable to me - I feel you are
> getting a real kick out of seeing how you can flounder
> about, stumbling and reeling from one crisis to the next.
Unfortunately, these things are _really_ happening. I'm not making them up.
> My experience with Linux has been much nicer than
> that, and if I do say so, you seem too intelligent for those
> sorts of difficulties to be genuine.
But they are genuine.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:50:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You said before that it doesn't work -
>
> so does it work or doesn't it?
I said Linux did not configure it - I said Mandrake's HardDrake tried to
configure it and failed.
I tried Linuxconf and set it to VIA-Rhine. Seems to work fine.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:53:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My favorite is holding my breath while printing. Windows would crap out
> at least half the time while printing. I wasted a lot of paper. I
> found it to be slightly more reliable if I stepped back from the keyboard
> and held my breath. Now I did think maybe it was just a crappy driver
> for that cheap Canon printer than came with my PC. So, when I bought my
> new Epson 880, I figured I would give Windows another try. No luck.
> Same problem. More paper wasted as my face turns blue. Now Linux never
> had a problem with either printer. Perfect printout every time.
Sounds like bad luck with Printers. I've had a Deskjet Pro, a colour
Deskjet 340 and Epson Color Stylus 640. They've all worked beautifully
with Windows except the colour Deskjet which developed paper feed proplems.
Linux can't align the page on my A4 sheet so far.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:00:54 GMT
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The ISP considers NT more important to support than W2K. I ask why they
> don't have more Linux support. The answer was "Linux users don't need
> our support. They usually support us."
> I know MS is trying to obsolete NT, but the market doesn't seem to be
> going along.
We (meaning @Home) support both equally. Other ISPs may "skew" things
toward one OS or another. The ONLY 32-bit OS we don't officially support is
Linux (it does NOT mean that Linux won't work, however).
Christopher L. Estep
CAE-Online
Comcast @Home Nationall Call Center
11800 Tech Road
Silver Spring, MD 20904
My opinions, not Comcast's or anyone else's.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:58:30 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Those aren't Cray supercomputers. They're clusters of above average, but
> basically normal systems.
I ran your post through babelfish, and the result was -
"If it doesn't run on Windows, it ain't worth squat."
FYI, Linux has all but taken over a market where Microsoft doesn't even have a
toehold.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:59:37 -0600
Flacco wrote:
> If Linux finds a cure for cancer, do you think the Winvocates will at last
> cry Uncle?
No, they'll die of cancer so they won't have to admit that Linux is anything
but a passing fad.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:07:41 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >It should go like this:
> >A> Log on as administrator
> >B> Go to Start>Settings>Network & Dial Up Connection
> >C> double click Make New Connection
>
> ...wait for Win2K to dial the phone and waste quite a bit
> of time fetching the local "approved" ISP list for your
> area.
Bologna. Most local ISPs can easily be used with Windows 2000. Configure
DUN as you would for 9x. For LAN or broadband connections (unless you use
xDSL and PPPoE) it's even easier; use ICW, configure for a LAN connection,
plug in your settings. That's it, go play on the Internet. Configuring
@Home from scratch on Windows 2000 is EASIER (not harder) than doing the
same on 9x (or Windows ME).
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:07:57 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Like how long Linux has promised to fully support SMP, right?
>
>
Gotta tellya Kyle~
This weekend I had some free time and installed both Debian and Caldera on
my home machine. (Yes, my hypocrisy knows no bounds).
Debian is only running afterstep on x11. (For whatever reason, the extra
discs with the packages don't show up as Debian discs...so I can't install
anything I don't want to compile). Caldera is loaded with everything. Both
have NT4 installed on VMware. The 2.4 kernel runs great on Potato. Caldera
hangs about 60% of the time randomly.
Anyhow: to the point, the SMP support is 150% better than with 2.2. And I
mean on both distros. That is when COL 2.4 decides to boot. It's spinning
my hardware like a top. I am pretty impressed.
I was planning to keep Caldera on here to see if I couldn't figure out what
is wrong with it, but f#cking Caldera. Who needs it?
Anyway, just FYI for whatever it is(n't) worth. 8*)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:08:35 GMT
"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nevd6.53302$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> > order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was up
> > and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends
out
> > to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> > line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
> >
> > So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
>
>
> Oh?
>
> I run @Home here on a dual-boot (soon to be quad-boot) Windows 98 SE/2000
> Professional box (the added OSes will be Whistler and Linux-Mandrake 7.x
> once a distro wtih 2.4 AND XFree86 4.0.2 ships). During install of Win2K
> Pro, I entered my computer name for @Home and the workgroup name. Then I
> simply configured the ICW to use a LAN connection and plugged in my mail
and
> news server settings. Automatic IP adressing and DHCP. No DNS. No
WINS.
> No automatic configuration or proxy servers. Instant warp-speed Internet
> connection, instantly usable.
Setting up Linux Mandrake for DSL was essentially that easy as well. Just
plug it into a NIC, change said NIC's addressing and whammo, high speed
Internet.
> On L-M, you CANNOT use the DHCP client (it
> always fails to get the settings from the DHCP server on bootup, so I
have
> to configure everything statically).
Sounds like we have similar setups (Win98 / 2000 Profesional / Linux
Mandrake 7.2 / Win95 'B' (via VMWare))
I'm assuming you mean Linux Mandrake by "L-M"
I had no such difficulties with DHCP...It fired right up and got its' lease
from my other box with no hiccups.
Win2K got a lease from the same box just as easily.
> I did NOT use the @Home CD at all.
> Easier than 98 SE or even Windows ME (both of which are easier than L-M,
> even though you cannot use the DHCP client in SE or Windows ME).
I gave WinME a pass...
>
> Rock-solid stability, and no "fiddling" needed.
Aside from some oddball behavior it displayed while I was working on some
explorer extensions, it seems a good deal more stable than NT. I still
haven't given it a good enough stress test as my home machine is normally
running Linux. I only boot into the MS paartitions when I need to work on a
couple of Windows projects. As soon as I get the time to install it, I'm
upping the memory to 512MB and running these OS's directly from VMWare. I
can already do this but 128MB isn't really sufficient to run VS6.0 and
Win2K in a virtual machine. (Slow).
>
> Christopher L. Estep
>
> PS: I even updated my video card via said "instant Internet" connection:
I
> told it to pull the current certified AIW Radeon drivers via Windows
Update
> once said connection was up and running.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
