Linux-Advocacy Digest #3, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Feb 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!! (J Sloan)
Re: Linux performance results (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux performance results (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux performance results (Donn Miller)
Re: Goodby MS... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Daza")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Paul Thurrott reports: "Microsoft Executives Trash Linux" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Bob Nelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:12:11 GMT
bigbinc wrote:
> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system.
Actually there is no minix code at all in Linux. The only
part of minix ever used was the filesystem, way back in
the very beginning, and that was soon replaced.
Linus used Maurice J Bach, "The Design of the Unix
Operating System" when designing Linux.
> The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful.
The argument between Linus and Tannenbaum is legendary.
> Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
> it missing, a GUI that is worthy something.
Gee, I really like Helix gnome - what's your beef with it?
> And, I have been trying x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time.
If you consider it a waste of time, that probably says a
lot more about you than it does about X windows.
> I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?
Some think X is overkill, hence there are lightweight
alternatives under development, e.g. Berlin et al.
> This guy agrees with me.
> http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html
The unix haters thing is ancient history, anyway it was written
by some lamers years before Linus began his great work -
It's kind of a joke, like the movie "reefer madness".
jjs
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 02:28:26 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux performance results
J Sloan wrote:
> That's interesting - I've always thought of debian
> as the "freebsd" of linux distros. I'm thinking that
> those who like freebsd will usually prefer debian.
Slackware is also FreeBSD-like, I found. But, as far as choice in Linux
distros, I would prefer RedHat over Slackware, because it has a nifty
ftp install that I can use over cable modem.(*) FreeBSD 4.2 also has a
pretty slick DHCP install via ftp option, and when you boot
post-install, viola! the DHCP interface is automatically configured for
the NIC you selected at install time. This is, of course, a
contradiction to what the Wintrolls were saying about DHCP and unix.
You wouldn't think FreeBSD would have something like this, since it
lacks all the "fancy" config tools that RedHat has.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 02:30:21 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux performance results
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I do also. The first time I used FreeBSD I was shocked
> at the performance difference. It truely is the fastest
> OS in the world for PC's. But it's license, its
> upgrade path, 95% emulation of linux for X, and lack
> of driver support for common peripherals made me drop
> it for Debian.
That's the clincher for a lot of people right there: the old BSD vs.
GPL license debate.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 02:35:13 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux performance results
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I do also. The first time I used FreeBSD I was shocked
> at the performance difference. It truely is the fastest
> OS in the world for PC's.
A point I might add here. I compared the performance of Windows 98 on
an AMD 450 against a machine running FreeBSD 4.0 on a P166 MMX, both
with 64 Megs of RAM. You'd be surprised, there really isn't much of a
difference in performance. In fact, the FreeBSD machine actually seemed
slightly more responsive. But then again, that probably doesn't
surprise too many people. Well, maybe EF. 8-)
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodby MS...
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:11:10 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95o31h$bv2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <es9f6.236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Kool Breeze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > I managed to learn just enough MFC/Win32 to get the app
> going and
> > > > > > > never learned the details, ie, 23 parameters/functions to
> paint a
> > > > > > > bitmap to the screen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is such a wild exageration that it makes the rest of
> your post
> > > > suspect.
> > > > >
> > > > > This may, in fact be a simplification.
> > > >
> > > > No, he claimed that each function has 23 parameters, that is 23
> > parameters
> > > > per function.
> > >
> > > Odd, I didn't read it the same way. Perhaps it is a perception
> issue.
> > Still,
> > > Windows could be easier.
> >
> > # Load and display BMP from any streambuf derived stream
> > CBMP *bmp=new CBMP(streambuf_derived);
> > bmp->Display(pDC,APoint,ASize,AspectCorrection,Centering);
> > delete bmp;
> >
> > Gotta love C++...
> > Do the silly shit once and wrap it up in a class!
> >
>
> Actually, that would be MS not able to write a decent API and or Class
It would have been nice if they had actually put some thought into MFC...
It appears to be grudgingly written by C programmers. The WTL classes are
far superior, IMHO, but, they're no longer being developed, are poorly
documented, and the classes that mirror MFC's are at times very
inconsistant.
The above class started out as a kludge to pull images from a database
stream. Now, it supports nearly a dozen formats including VICAR (as a
joke). About the only thing I used from the API was the bitblit function.
The less you rely on the internal functions, oddly enough, the more
consistant the results across all of the platforms. You'd think that the
API would behave consistantly between 95 and NT, but it doesn't. Palette
handling is entirely different as is how ANISOTROPIC mapping mode is
carried out.
------------------------------
From: "Daza" <[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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:11:27 -0000
Reply-To: "Daza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 5 Feb 2001 05:24:59
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > How many $$$$$$$$$$$ extra did you have to spend to get this
> >1960's-era
> >> > > capability
> >> >
> >> > With NT4 and W2k (and 3.51 I think) you can easily use a remote
console
> >> > session to do command line administration. With W2k server you can
also
> >use
> >> > Terminal Services to do remote GUI administration tasks. These are
> >standard
> >> > tools supplied by Microsoft as part of Server versions of their OS.
No
> >> > extra cash required.
> >>
> >> Please elaborate on this remote console capability of NT4. I never saw
> >> it except through third party tools. The closest you could get was the
> >> MS telnet server, which most definitely did not come with NT4, and was
in
> >> fact labelled beta until 2k came out.
> >
> >Terminal Services.
>
> You don't seem to understand, Ayende: the phrase 'terminal services' has
> no meaning in a Windows environment. Windows PCs aren't like Unix
> hosts; they literally do not have, and cannot provide, terminal
> services.
Telnet anyone? Remote cmd.exe?
>
> What Microsoft calls "terminal services" is a hack which allows a second
> desktop UI across a TCP/IP connection. (TCP/IP being what it is, this
> means it allows a third, a fourth, and a hundredth, should you find some
> magical way to have sufficient resources and be silly enough to try it.)
> Its 'partitioning' of the OS, as opposed to the time-sharing of Unix's
> multiple shell access; a limited version of the Citrix/Winframe-style
> system.
It is not simple "partitioning". Citrix originally licensed the source code
for NT3.51 so that they could specifically add a multi-user core to NT. You
know, time sharing between users. Citrix also developed the clever ICA
protocol and client that allowed remote GUI access to each user session,
which required much less bandwidth than X. Microsoft then bought the
mult-user core from Citrix and created Nt Terminal Services. An improved
Terminal Services is included as standard in W2k. However, Citrix retained
all rights to extend and market ICA based clients, whilst Microsoft
developed their own protocol.
If you wanted to, you could set up W2k terminal service so that every remote
user who logged in got their own cmd.exe shell running under their own user
id. Or you could assign a full desktop, or maybe just a single GUI app. It
is very configurable. I am sure that UNIX does multiple user terminal
access much more efficiently as this is part of the original design of the
core OS.
>
> The only difference between this and PC Anywhere is that the 'Windows
> terminal server' approach has a virtual session being transferred across
> the network, instead of the "real" desktop.
PCAnywhere takes control of whatever desktop is currently running. You
cannot log in a start a separate session.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:18:52 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Ebert at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 1:41 AM:
> Perhaps you would rather just have a net appliance than
> a PC. I think a great many of the former PC users
> will be using them in the future.
Net appliances are a joke, and OS X makes linux look like a toy OS so go
play with your toy OS, and your toy business models and in the meantime the
industry will march on as it always has: away from text based jiber jaber.
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:21:25 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cerberus AOD at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 12:50 AM:
> :)>(Just wish they had Personal Websharing for it. )
>
> Personal websharing?
*sigh* Winblows calls it personal webserver now that I think of it, the
cheezy built in web server that USED to let me download files on the pc to
my mac, now I can only go one way. :(
-g3
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Paul Thurrott reports: "Microsoft Executives Trash Linux"
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:29:52 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:38:38 GMT, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"InBiz" <sl@theplanetdotorg> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >> What else would anyone expect Steve Balmer to say in public. In
private
> > >> he's probably laughing his ass off at the 'Linux threat".
> > >
> > >That would be a dire mistake. Out there in serverland, what the big
boy
> > >commercial Unices aren't running on, is quickly being swollowed up by
the
> > >twin "fads" Linux and BSD. If either one comes through with a cohesive
> > >desktop that people can agree on...Microsoft's toast.
> >
> > Even better...if either one comes through with a cohesive desktop, they
> > both do.
>
> They're already out there. It's just that the MBA's haven't seen them
yet.
This goes back to the discussion turned sometimes heated debate a last
month. It'll happen soon....
>
> Here's the thing to do..
>
> If you have ANY Linux systems set up at work....start grabbing the senior
> managers and ask them, "Hey, do you want to see the wave of the future?"
Actually, the only MS systems at work are the development PC's. The
internal network and the soon to be Web side of things (when I get around
to it) are totally Linux (DNS, DHCP, MAIL, DB, PROJECT, PRINT SERVICES).
The development systems will remain MS until this project is over and done
with. The development systems will then be booted to the Linux partitions
and the real fun begins!
>
> Let them play with it a bit...mention that it has nearly the same
stability
> as the $500,000 E10000 Sun server...ask them how they like it...
> After you get a positive response...THEN tell them "It's LINUX"
Not neccesary here. The anti-MS tone of the place and the coming projects
are the only reasons I bothered to take the job.
>
> The BEST way to combat the FUD being aimed at management is to give
> management HANDS-ON experience with LINUX.
They had "penguined" the network nearly a year before I showed up there. It
all started with a print server that went down, as I understand it. They
slapped togther an old 486 with Linux as a replacement/lark and it blew the
doors off of the Pentium class NT print server it replaced. It wasn't long
before Linux found its way onto all of the servers. No rebooting and no
hassles. Everybody takes the network for granted now. The only time one of
them had to be brought down was when a SCSI drive started screaming in
agony.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:28:34 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/6/01 12:45 AM:
> In which case, its what we call in the military "Operator Headspace error"
>
> His implication was that the CD-ROM couldn't be detected because
> of some fault of hte OS.
>
> Oh, he later claimed that [/dev/cdrom] could be found by the CLI, but
> not by the GUI.
>
> UTTER FUCKING HORSESHIT.
So far you've yet to substatiate a single claim for why linux is a consumer
os, or why these problems occur. On the exact same machine win2k installed
in like 45 minutes and I think asked me for all of my name, and to check the
current date the whole time, that was upgrading the thing from 98, with the
keep my apps option, and the switch drive to ntfs option.
The only utter fucking horseshit is your potty mouth, and the fact that
linux can't do shit without you writing a 14 page essay on exactly how it
should do it and stashing it away in some obscure little directory.
>
>>
>>> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't
>>> recognized?
>>
>> Uhm. The BIOS finds the CD, boots from the El Torito floppy image, and then
>> that image loads a kernel which doesn't probe the CD? This can't happen
>> to various users of various OS's more than a few thousand times a week.
>
> Not if the CD-ROM is installed correctly.
Win2k no problems, Redhat AND Caldera (though Caldera was a fucking dream to
install by comparison) nothing BUT problems.
>
>>
>> Linux may not be as bad as that guy thought it was, but you sure aren't
>> impressing anyone by "debunking" a story which is fairly common and
>> well-understood.
>
> I've done quite a few installs, with very NON-standard hardware
> configurations with respect to number of disk drives and CD-ROMS.
>
> I've never had a problem even once.
>
> RedHat...SuSE...Mandrake.
>
> Not a single failure to find the CD-ROM....EVER!
That's splendid I'm happy for you, I think even windows is incredible when
it works its the times it doesn't that count.
Still you can't do anything more than run about in denial saying "no its not
possible linux really does blow bill gates nuts", and using insults in lieu
of logic. Not a healthy substitute, congrads your the first person I've
ever had to filter on a NEWSGROUP. Now I'll just right click your widdle
name in the box at the top of the window select "add to blocked users" and
my custom script will ensure I never see anymore of your drival before you
can even say "but pine !(P*^#$. "
Sayanora, drivel boy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:32:13 GMT
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 19:38:06 -0500, 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. This is how I have always done it and I didn't have to do
> > this when I installed Win2k.
>
> Was that Win2k installed under VmWare? Level playing field, please.
>
> > 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.
>
> So why has my Win98 box spontaneously decided to add another network
card,
> despite the fact that I've not even had the cover off the machine for
days?
>
Poorly implemented Plug and Play.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:38:07 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Black Dragon at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/5/01 10:41 PM:
> : Ah, the IBM M-series ;) the massive clicky monstrosity that strikes
> : fear into the hearts of LAN gamers everywhere... Between that and the
> : Apple USB Extended II, The Just Don't Make 'Em Like That Anymore.
You mean ADB Extended II right? The USB Extended 2 is pretty new.
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:41:38 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J Sloan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
2/5/01 11:56 PM:
>> When I installed LINUX I spent like 1.5 hours just trying to find a mouse
>> and keyboard it would recognize, then more time trying to get it to see a
>> simple thing like a CD ROM, (it never did get the printer),
>
> So you're really slow - that doesn't make you a bad
> person, it just means you ought to stay away from
> computers.
I love how you UNIX guys assume that just because you experts an UX never
have problems no one else will, that alone is proof UX (aside from OS X)
will never be a consumer OS.
>> I remember I had
>
>> to restart like 4 times to get the monitor to install,
>
> Here's where you really went out into left field -
> there is no restart in the Linux install procedure.
I was dicking around with video setting trying to get my (it was some SVIRGE
video card) to display the PROPER res. I tried moving the card around,
which last time I checked requires restart.
>> the partition program
>> kept fucking up, then the damn thing didn't want to connect to the LAN
>
> OK, this is definitely starting to sound like a scripted troll.
>
> As one who has been using Linux for a few years,
> I can say that an install of say Red Hat on a recent
> machine takes all of 45 minutes from booting the
> install disk to a functional X desktop and full-on
> network connectivity.
Wow thatıs the same amount of time it took me to get win 2k to upgrade my 98
drive, convert my programs (and weed out ones suspected to not work) and to
reformat the drive to NTFS. No problems since either.
-g3
------------------------------
From: Bob Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:52:08 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I then tried Linux with this stupendous file. VIM handled it with no
> problems - though I question why PFE and VIM took so long to load it.
> Editors used to work by only loading what was needed, not the whole
> file.
Brief did (and still does) this quite well. With vim, I usually use the
``-n'' option to speed things up considerably on large files.
> So I tried KEDit of KDE 2.0. Oops! It crashed.
I don't have either AbiWord, the Advanced Editor or even Microsoft Word
(perhaps one of 42 people in the world with a computer in that situation).
Anyone, the use of a large file as input (and Joe Sloan's observations)
were enough to pique my curiosity. As others have stated, a file of this
size is better suited for a stream editor or other such tools as opposed
to an interactive editor...
...but anyway...I used a 132,527,196 byte text file as input made through
repeated cats of a 6mB file of plain ASCII development notes on a rather
complex software project.
On my system, gvim with the ``-n'' flag handled it well. No surprise there.
Meanwhile, xemacs [XEmacs 21.1 (patch 12)] was its usual self, slow to load
but eventually, it did read in the whole thing unlike the experience Joe
reported. In both cases, after making a few edits, the file was saved
without lossage.
- Then, I tried kedit [Qt: 2.2.3, KDE: 2.0.1, KEdit: 1.3].
For a while, I thought that maybe I'd have to hit the reset button. The
mouse quit responding, I couldn't tab through my windows (I'm still using
fvwm2 and probably always will, it's tweaked just the way I like it). Also,
Ctrl-Alt-Fx wouldn't accept my input so I couldn't kill kedit from a VT. I
thought of trying the Magic SysRq key but couldn't get to the documentation
(to remember the key sequence) because I couldn't change out the the xterm
where I fired up kedit on the file.
As I reached down toward the computer for a reset, I noticed occasional
flashes of the drive light...so I opted just to wait. After about 30 seconds,
the mouse pointer came back and I could get focus into another xterm where I
was running as root. A little while later, the mouse quit responding again and
no input was being accepted into the xterm. So, I waited a tad longer and was
able to get this information:
01:49:29 on Tue Feb 6
[root@renpen]: (12905)
(Exit: 0) ~
===== # free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 127156 125692 1464 0 504 23804
-/+ buffers/cache: 101384 25772
Swap: 402112 385012 17100
01:49:31 on Tue Feb 6
[root@renpen]: (12906)
(Exit: 0) ~
===== # uptime
1:49am up 8 days, 1:12, 4 users, load average: 14.18, 12.20, 8.00
Just about 3 minutes later, kedit finished loading the whole file. The load
went back to a more reasonable level. I made a few changes to the file and
saved it. Unlike Joe's experience, the whole file was saved without any
lossage from kedit:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 bnelson users 132527184 Feb 6 01:56 bigdoc
-rw-rw-r-- 1 bnelson users 132527196 Feb 6 01:16 bigdoc~
Here's the system info...I'm on what is now considered a low end machine
but it mostly suits me well, except for experiments like this.
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 5
model : 4
model name : Pentium MMX
stepping : 4
cpu MHz : 199.907
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : yes
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx
bogomips : 398.95
Linux renpen 2.4.1 #1 Thu Feb 1 00:43:51 CST 2001 i586 unknown
> This is the wonderfully stable system that is Linux folks!
I thought maybe the kedit experiment on this 132 Mb file may have proved to
be a problem...but such wasn't the case. Believe me, I have been able to
lock up Linux doorstop dead -- as root, doing deliberate hardware-access
things like ``setpci'', writing to to hard drive slots but not as a non-root
user.
OTOH, I've been running NT (generally for only a few hours a month) on the
same box since 1997 and have had three BSODs or lockups that I can't really
account for:
1). NT4SP3: Ran the MSN Demo disk as Administrator. Nice graphics, good
sound and great looking women. I then clicked on the button to get
more info after the demo presentation. Mouse died. Ctrl-Alt-Del
didn't get me to the task manager. Waited...waited...waited. Watched
a NASCAR race on TV...came back 90 minutes later. No response. Had
to reboot.
2). NT4SP5: As a regular user, installed the RealJukebox app. Asked for
a reboot, complied. Upon starting, BSOD. Tried again after a power
off, BSOD. Had to use the "Emergency Repair" disk. Evidently, the
single point of failure (aka the Registry) must've gotten mangled by
the RealJukebox post-install.
3). NT4SP6a: As Admin, I ran Windows Update from MSIE 5 a few months
back to upgrade to 5.5. I opted for the ``typical setup''. With 18
megs (on my slow 28.8 connection, I just let it run overnight). BSOD
the next morning...read the sports pages while contemplating sending
the hexdump to Microsoft. But everything worked fine after doing a
power cycle.
Other than RealPlayer (RealJukebox is gone) and Borland's C++ Builder,
my NT is just about 100% Microsoft in the C:\Program Files hierarchy.
> Now, I must try a few GNOME editors and see if they fare any better.
> How about StarOffice, what will it do with this file?
As for me, I'll forego the test with StarOffice...that thing takes ~4 minutes
to load on my system before any data goes into it. I use it only when I *really,
really* have to! :-)
So, I've had some ``issues'' with WinNT but I've just learned to deal with
them as we have to do with the fire ants here in Texas.
--
========================================================================
Bob Nelson -- Dallas, Texas, USA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
``Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.''
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
