Linux-Advocacy Digest #989, Volume #31 Mon, 5 Feb 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Peter Ammon)
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? (de baas)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Aaron R Kulkis (Dan Hinojosa)
Re: Linux is awful (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Re: The 130MByte text file (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: DOS2Unix
Re: Whistler predictions... ("bored")
Re: KDE Hell
What makes GNU/Linux good! ("Martigan")
Re: KDE Hell
Re: Whistler predictions... (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 13:24:45 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
G3 wrote:
>
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Billy White Jr. at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/5/01 9:20 AM:
>
> > Wrong. They saw a dog and pony show *AT* PARC, seeing the actual
> > machines in use.
>
> A privelege they got after Apple bought some stock in xerox.
>
> > They never saw code, but they saw working machines
> > running the code. The work was similar to the computer Jeff Raskin
> > envisioned, and Raskin used the meeting to sell Jobs on the concept, who
> > was *against* the Mac, and the GUI concept, until the PARC demo.
>
> You're wrong on that one Raskin wanted a very low powered machine for the
> Mac, he thought the GUI was neat but did NOT want it on the Mac because it
> would increase the cost to well beyond his dream machine of under 1000
> dollars. It was JOBS who orchestrated the PARC visit.
You're wrong on Jobs. It was Atkinson and Tom Whitney who got Jobs to
go, at the urging of Raskin. In fact, Jobs had earlier refused to go
see Xerox. And a lot of the Mac had already been created, without Jobs'
knowing, before the historic visit.
[snip the rest]
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (de baas)
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:44:25 +0000 (UTC)
In article <RGje6.678$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > The topic, is someone stating that Linux is running on Cray
>supercomputers
>> > based on a link. The real fact is that it's not a Cray supercomputer,
>it's
>> > a Cray cluster of average computers. Yet in your hurry to slam
>everything,
>> > you don't bother to understand what you're commenting on.
>>
>> Cray's "supercomputers" have been big piles of Alpha processors for years.
>> The only significant difference is that they are now pushing them with
>Linux
>> on them.
>
>No. Cray supercomputers such as the SV1 and the (in development) SV2 don't
>use Alpha's. Nor does the T90.
>
>Cray has two types of supercomputer, the Vector Processor based computer,
>and the MPP based systems. The MPP based computers are Alpha based, while
>the others (the vast majority of their systems) are not.
>
>
>
Yes but which ones are the fastest if you have a nice parallel code?
Sean
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:50:15 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Ammon at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/5/01 1:24 PM:
> You're wrong on Jobs. It was Atkinson and Tom Whitney who got Jobs to
> go, at the urging of Raskin. In fact, Jobs had earlier refused to go
> see Xerox. And a lot of the Mac had already been created, without Jobs'
> knowing, before the historic visit.
>
> [snip the rest]
>
> -Peter
I have at least two books I can quote if need be (Insanely Great, by Steve
Levy, and Accidental Millionaire by, heck I forget his name)
I am sure Raskin may have liked GUI, I am sure he didn't want it on the Mac.
His Mac was to be a sub 1000 dollar machine and he opposed GUI because it
required expensive components that would greatly increase the cost of the
machine.
Also, I'm sure that it was Jobs (being the one capable of getting Xerox to
make a deal like that) that set it up.
-G3
------------------------------
From: Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:56:58 -0700
Unfortunately, people like that who call people "fucking idiots" are
going to drive a few people who would've been happy to support linux's in
their workplace away. As an advocate, they don't understand that even
courtesy counts. Like you said, "sad".
"--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
> A very sad little boy who pretends to be a man with an important job.
>
> Nearly every post he makes he has to swear in.
>
> Sad.
>
> Still, I suppose it has to be so when Linux attracts mostly long hair
> weirdos.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:49:07 GMT
In article <95mosj$kb3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 16:29:57 GMT, "Dichotimus Grok"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> It is almost cerstainly MacMillan.
> >> I bought Mandrake 7.2 "complete" from
> >> Wal-Mart for $25.00. Turns out by "complete",
> >> they mean without almost all
> >>the tools you need for development!!!
Mandrake 7.2 comes in 3 flavors. There's Linux for Windows
which installs Mandrake's file system on a large contiguous file
under Windows (no repartitioning necessary). This is the easiest
way to introduced new users to Linux. In addition, there is a
Windows icon that "Launches" Linux (shuts down Windows and boot Linux).
The "Complete" edition contains all of the GPL software but by default
only installs desktop software. One of the common complaints is that
new users are overwhelmed by all of the features that are bundled in.
The "Deluxe" edition includes commercial software that can be activated
via the Internet. It also includes all of the server software.
The Open Source server and development software are actually included on
all three distributions. You have to go to the package manager and
explicitly request the applications you know you want. One of the
problems of setting up Linux systems is that you want to have a positive
impact without swamping the hard drive. When you only have a few
hundred megabytes (LfW) you want to make sure that you load only the
best. When you have 5-7 gigabytes, you don't have to be bashful.
You also want to go to the "updates" icon (under the KDE display)
which can be used to get all of the security patches. This can take a
while, but it's very informative.
> >> There ought to be a class action
> >> lawsuit filed against MacMillan for calling
> >> it "Complete", in my opinion.
Customers who want "Deluxe" software should buy the "Deluxe" edition.
Mandrake tries to be the best distribution for new Linux users.
It fills a gap left by Red Hat 6.0 through 6.2 and only partially
filled by Red Hat 7.0.
If you are an experienced user and you really want all of the goodies,
you might want to examine SuSE server edition or Red Hat commercial
edition. They are more expensive ($99 and $199 respectively).
When you start looking at commercial bundles, you might like
Caldera if you like Oracle 8i.
Slackware and Debian are terrible for beginners, but they have
very substantial and reliable configurations.
> > Somebody in the Mandrake group has
> > already propsed doing just that.
> > The "Support" they mention on the side
> > of the box is misleading as
> > well.
The service available is actually provided by LinuxCare and
only covers installation support. As with all Linux distributions,
long-term support contracts are available on a subscription or
"per incident" basis from various providers. There is also a
support network which is interwoven so that you can get support
from one vendor that covers an entire assortment of prooducts.
> Obviously these people do not understand what linux is.
> The pay-for- version of mandrake contains development
> tools AND just about everything
> else that any idiotic windows user could possibly understand.
The key is that "Complete" is careful not to overwhelm new users
with too much at once. There are nearly 4000 applications in
the Deluxe distribution, which doesn't include all of the modules,
libraries, cgi, PHP, and ASP features of the servers and languages.
To learn all 4000 applications could take 2-3 years. Complete lets
you focus on a smaller subset to start.
> What exactly is it missing?
>
> > The package also does NOT include a server install.
> > It also says USB supported, which turns out to be a mixed bag.
>
> As ive said before, it works just fine for me and truckloads of other
> people.
I bought two USB web cameras (IBM and Logitech). The IBM camera is
supported in 2.4. The Logitech is not yet supported on any terms.
(I'd love to hear of any updates). I eventually had to switch to
a parallel port.
The USB mouse worked OK though.
> > I would avoid using that update CD because that is the one that
> > trashed my entire system a couple of weeks ago.
>
> YOU trashed your entire system, because you dont understand linux.
>
> Hey claire, just for the sake of argument, try installing FreeBSD 4.2.
> It has full USB support, etc. Id love to see what happens when you
> attempt to install another flavor of UNIX.
>
> -----.
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 19:14:23 -0000
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:41:08 +1100, Interconnect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unfortunately you need the overhead to run windows, you can quite
>comfortably run Linux wihout KDE or Gnome, if you can cope with CLI that is.
You can pretty much ignore both KDE and GNOME and STILL
not be subjected to using the CLI in Linux.
[deletia]
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: 5 Feb 2001 20:09:29 +0100
In article <95f7vh$l3d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
>>
>> I never wrote a text file that big :-)
>>
>> I think my record is around 200M.
>
>I cant even imagine the use of it. Whats in the 200M ?
Numbers that go into a contour plotting routine. The files are vastly
compressible and so I can remain lazy and not deal with "programmer I/O".
Yes, the numbers are floats in 6g12.4 format
Most of those files are closer to 5M
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 5 Feb 2001 19:19:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > John Hasler wrote:
:> >>
:> >> Walt writes:
:> >> > The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
:> >> > of God."
:> >>
:> >> Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
:> >> atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
:> >> imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
:> >>
:> >> > That is definitely an active belief.
:> >>
:> >> "Does not believe" is not "believes not".
:>
:> > Geeze, you're as dogmatic as the people you deride.
:>
:> Uh, fella, this is as basic a piece of modal logic as one can get.
:>
:> You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
:> necessity, obligation, and so on. Id normally direct you to the
:> library, but let's try ...
:>
:> Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
:> I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
:> operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
:> operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
:>
:> Now you know what the subject area is called - it's an important and
:> large one - you can look it up.
:>
:> Peter
: There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
: 1) Belief that the proposition is true.
: 2) "I don't know"
: 3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
: One cannot claim that one is neither (1) nor (2), and still TOTALLY
: without a belief.
You are right. Too bad for your argument, though, that atheists
often *do* say (2), and your implication that all atheists say
they are not (1) and not (2) is false. Firstly, knowlege and belief
are two seperate things. Secondly, One can act as if something is
true whilst being honest and admitting that they don't really know it
is true. Similarly one can admit that one doesn't *know* that god
doesn't exist, while still acing on the assumption that he doesn't,
as a default hypothesis. (I'll leave the topic of *why* I think that
god not existing makes the best default hypothesis for a later
post, if you are interested. However, simply taking a position as
a default hypothesis given a lack of evidence does not count as a
belief.)
[snip assinine sig]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 19:20:23 -0000
On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:22:20 GMT, Form@C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>All I ever wanted to do was multi-task DOS, really. And that's where
>>Microsoft went wrong, IMHO. They built up Windows and tried to hide
>>DOS. They could have made DOS as powerful as any UNIX and sold Windows
>>as an application. But no.
>>
>>Oh well.
>>
>
>What M$ did was produce a system designed to make computers more accessible
>to people without extensive DOS knowledge and without the time to learn it.
A DECADE AFTER APPLE.
Meanwhile, Microsoft was still subjecting it's captive audience
to all of the nastiness of MS-DOS.
>I don't think they actually did anything *wrong* at that time, just
>followed an alternative route. (OK, I'm leaving out any legality arguments
>here). They hid DOS because they thought that was the right thing to do at
>the time.
Except they did so 10 years after all of their competitors.
They had PLENTY of time in that DECADE to make the DOS
underneath robust while still accelerating their GUI development
(rather than sandbagging).
[deletia]
The notion that Microsoft ever did any favors for the novice
end user is just an absurd Lemming fantasy. The fact that
Microsoft was still pushing DOS as it's primary consumer OS
in 1995 is why many of us are Linux users.
Manual memory management is the height of user hostility,
not CLI Unix shells.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "bored" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:15:06 -0000
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
>
>
>
offical windows 2000 "launch" pricing
http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/features/1999/11-02pricing.asp
quote "Windows 2000 Professional ERP $319"
&
quote "Prices for Windows 2000 Professional remain essentially unchanged
from Windows NT Workstation 4.0, although Microsoft for the first time will
offer a lower-priced upgrade for Windows 95/98 customers"
offical windows NT 4 "launch" pricing
http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1996/jul96/NTW40PR.asp
quote "Microsoft Windows NT Workstation version 4.0 will be available within
the next month for approximately $319."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 19:28:47 -0000
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:12:34 GMT, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And Charlie Ebert spoke unto the masses...
>:When it comes to Koresh, don't we have better things to do
>:with our Federal money and time than chace religious kooks?
>:Religious kooks with guns or not, who cares....
>:
>:Did they break any law? I still never heard.
>
>Yes, several fire arms laws, hence the ATF.
Koresh was a licenced machine gun dealer.
So that might be rather disputable.
Also, the mere presence law enforcment personnel does
not demonstrate guilt.
[deletia]
The bulk of their 'stockpile' was weapons that are available
in models that are quite legal for civilians to purchase and
own without any special licencing.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What makes GNU/Linux good!
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 19:28:58 GMT
Well I thought I should write (not right) this because of all the
Wintroll-linsux-isms out there.
I started my computer days with an Atari 800XL, then a C=62, followed by
an Amiga 2000. I had the Amiga until 1998 when I bought a PIII with
windows.
Since day One "I" had trouble with it. With previous exp./w Amiga, I
was used to doing things my way (yes I know AOS required allot of patching
but it worked for me.) I was afraid to take the Linux dive until I bought
Calder 2.3, which was great! It was good to introduce me into the Linux
world, to get used to the file structures (which was familiar to me like the
AOS.) After upgrading my gfx card Linux didn't work, actually X didn't
work, Linux was fine; so I gave up.
But there was the voice still in my head...kill, kill, kill...nope not
those, but Linux...Linux... So I said F*ck it bought Maximum Linux (No they
didn't pay me.) and installed MD 7.0.
After battling through the man, how-to's, NG's and everything else, I
got my system up and running. It was allot of work! Nights upon nights of
reading and trying. I still consider myself a newbie(sp?) but I love it.
After familiarizing my self with Linux I can never leave it.
I have the same PIII 450, 256Meg RAM, 20 Gig Maxtor, Geforce DDR,
SndBlstr Live!. And I could run 3 Mpegs with full sound, open office, GIMP,
and Pac-Man with no problems. Hell windows has problems trying to run one
Mpeg with an other program. And screw that if two programs wish to access
the ".dll" for the sound card!
Basically, beside my lack of spelling and English grammar, Linux, even
though takes a while to learn, is well worth it! I'm glad that it is not
for the mainstream computer user (which don't even know what FDISK is for!)
At least Linux can stay true to the people who want the freedom of choice,
and not a choice of options!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 19:30:10 -0000
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 02:38:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 3 Feb 2001
>>On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:12:34 GMT,
>> John Travis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>And Charlie Ebert spoke unto the masses...
>>>:When it comes to Koresh, don't we have better things to do
>>>:with our Federal money and time than chace religious kooks?
>>>:Religious kooks with guns or not, who cares....
>>>:
>>>:Did they break any law? I still never heard.
>>>
>>>Yes, several fire arms laws, hence the ATF.
>>
>>funnily enough, there were no convictions of firearms violations.
>
>Well, considering the suspects burned themselves to death before they
>could be charged, I don't find it funny at all.
There were sufficient survivors for a trial.
Why weren't you aware of this?
[deletia]
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: 5 Feb 2001 19:29:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () posted:
: | >>| >> I'm sure you're speaking about a recent version of Mandrake. Try Win2k
: | >>| >> and you'll be equally stunned.
: | >>> |
: | >>> | I run Win2K Professional and there's no comparison....
: | >>> | Mandrake wins, hands down, for hardware detection.
: | >>
: | >>Do you still have to select your display adapter and monitor?
:> |
:> | Still?
:> |
:> | Redhat 5.0 did video autodetection, nevermind Mandrake 7.2.
: Come on!! I just installed Mandrake under VMWare on my system, as well
: as on another system and I had to choose monitor and graphics card
: manually.
VMware gets in the way of some hardware detection. It presents fake
virtual devices, but doesn't always give the right answers to the
autodetection queries by the OS. I can't get Windows NT to discover
my 'video card' either when I run VMware the other way around (NT as
a guest OS, Linux as the native OS). This is because VMware is
presenting a fake Video card that doesn't even exist in the real world.
In the NT control panel, under Display Properties, my Adapter Type is
listed as "VMware, Inc. svga". The driver to make this work was
supplied by a download from VMware, and was not autodetected. I had
to use the "Have Disk" style of driver installation.
: This is how I have always done it and I didn't have to do
: this when I installed Win2k. My sound card, graphics card (specific
: drivers), monitor, modems, printer, scanner and zip250 drive were all
: installed and ready for use when I installed Win2k. My mission here is
: not really to preach how wonderful Win2k is but to just mention that
: I've had better experience with Windows plug and play that Linux.
: Since a Linux version with the new kernel was mentioned with regards
: to great plug and play support, I thought I'd ask about graphics card
: detection.
Do you get the same results from native installs of Linux that you
do from VMware installs?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
