Linux-Advocacy Digest #46, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ) (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: More Mandrake Fun :( (Sgt Detritus)
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Ben Reiter)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (CR Lyttle)
Re: What's EF's explanation on this one? (CR Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:59:14 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 31 Jan 2001
>Giuliano Colla wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
[...]
>> > +---------------------------------------+
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | X |
>> > | |
>> > | You are here |
>> > | (more ore less) |
>> > | |
>> > +---------------------------------------+
>> >
>> > Map at the Heisenberg Institute
>> >
>>
>> LOL! That's one of the best graphic representation of Schroedinger's
>> equations I've ever seen!
>
>Actually, it's a commentary about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
>
>Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that there is a tradeoff
>of knowing position vs. knowing velocity.
>
>The more accurately you measure the position of an object, the less
>accurate is your measurement of velocity, and vice-versa.
>
>Imagine you take a picture of a speeding race-car.
>
>If your shutter speed is very fast, you know it's position
>exactly...but it's velocity can only be guessed at.
>
>Conversely, you can take a long exposure, and, by measuring the
>length of the image of the car vs. the stationary background,
>you can judge it's velocity rather more accurately, but at
>the price of knowing less about it's position.
That's a pretty nice analogy (even if it does involve automobiles! ;-}),
Aaron. I'm surprised I haven't heard it more often.
>A corrolary of this principle (by re-arranging the equations)
>is that (as can be guessed from above) there is a trade-off
>between knowing the total energy of a system vs. time of
>measurement.
>
>This means that, at the sub-atomic level, we will NEVER detect
>certain event if the product delta-time x delta-energy is
>below the minimum threshold of uncertainty...at least not with
>any experimental apparatus based on Quantum Dynamic theory.
>
>Einstein summarized this principle as follow:
>
> The rule is *not* "Don't stick your tongue out at the
> teacher;" the rule is "Don't GET CAUGHT sticking your
> tongue out at the teacher."
>
>In this case, he was referring to the Conservation of Mass-Energy law...
>that is, if the violation of Conservation of Mass-Energy is short enough,
>then, in fact, the substance being studied "can get away with" violating
>the conservation law.
>
>Thus, the theorizing about entities such as "gluons"...massive,
>short-lived particles that keep the nucleus together...as long as
>the atomic nucleus is small, then the gluon can pop into-existance,
>traverse the nucleus, and then disappear again, without violating
>the Conservation of Mass-Energy law, because it's too short-lived.
>With larger, nuclei, however, the gluon might not be able to do
>it's work within the specified time to remain undetected...and
>thus, and explanation for fission decay of the heavier elements.
Also reasonably well explained, but I sense you're going a bit
overboard.
I think what's most remarkable is that your response is more than a
sentence or two to begin with. Not what we're used to seeing from you,
Aaron (though I can understand that discussing this stuff is pretty
irresistible, to those of us who find it fascinating.) Be careful,
they're going to take away your troll card.
>Ultimately, as the present Quantum Dynamic method is finally
>overthrown for new, more comprehensive physics (in the same way
>that Quantum Dynamics overthrew classical Newtonian physics to
>explain what happens at the atomic level), we may discover a
>way to see below the threshold defined by Heisenberg's uncertainty
>principle.
>
>Schroedinger, was, of course, trying to argue that Heisenberg's
>proposal lead to irrational paradoxes...yet, so far, Heisenberg
>has held out, without a single paradox arising.
I don't believe you're right, here. Shroedinger was *illustrating* the
ramifications of quantum theory in producing what would appear to be
irrational results when applied to the macro-universe, whether Newtonian
or the 'already irrational' Einsteinian, universe.
[...]
>Anyway, in the original drawing, there was a man, standing in front
>of a campus map, title Heisenberg Institute, with a large X and a
>legend bearing the words, "you are here (more or less)"
Cool cartoon; I think I've seen it.
I think ultimately it will all fall out with the 'extra dimensions'
required for string theory to be predictive being infinite in number.
Leaving use where we started, but with a universal field theory.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Sgt Detritus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mandrake Fun :(
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:53:51 GMT
In article <HNng6.22623$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Goober" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, I installed mandrake almost by mistake while using its DRAK
installer
> to change a PC from NT to 98. It seems 98 cannot recognise an NTFS
disk and
> Fdisk cannot either, it kept saying 'This is a non DOS partition -
Cannot
> remove extended Partition, No extended partion cannot remove primary
> Partition, Logical drives defined in extended partition - Cannot
remove' etc
> etc.
> I used the DRAK to repair it, then thought- 'Why am I using windows
on this
> machine if even the mandrake installer is needed to format the
disks?',
> installed the whole thing and it looks good.
> Configuring linux is still a complete mess tho. Must it be so
complicated
> and require so many Kernal recompiles to get anything working? Is
there a
> distribution that does not require you to re-compile to get it to
recognise
> hardware?
Odd, I've never had to recompile the kernel just to get things working
on my machine (slightly older, mandrake 7.0). The installer did all
the work. the only exception was that it did not like the sound card,
but 1 tarball and make command later I had working sound.
alt.os.linux.mandrake has a lot of good people willing to help with the
troubling stuff. A little light reading in an old Unix textbook and I
was ready to go (I do mean light, I was looking into how to do some
basic file system stuff and where to find help if needed. scanned 2
chapters and got most of what I needed) Since then I am constantly
amazed at what I can find in a cheap distibution disk that came out of
a magazine. I am also amazed at how stable it is. I reinstalled
windows on said machine and it took 2 hours and who knows how many
reboots to get it useable. started a fresh linux install for the hell
of it right afterwards. 45 minutes later I was surfing and doing stuff
in linux. I used Mandrake because it was there, but I could have
aquired Linux from a very broad selection of sources.
Anyway, learning from experience I am more confident in EITHER os and
if I need to do something, it's very likely that it can be done with
linux. just need to learn where to look
good luck
paul
--
Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
without noticing is a man with way too much on
his mind.
~~Terry Pratchett, Guards, Guards~~
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:09:17 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others
state
> > quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so
numerous
> > times.
>
> So, perhaps it never crashed for him - did you consider that?
There is a difference between stating that you've never seen it crash, and
stating that it doesn't crash. One is an absolute, one is qualified.
> > Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
>
> On the S/390 mainframe? or an Alpha? How about a PowerPC?
There is only one CPU supported of those families, thus their lowest common
denominator is that single CPU.
> > That
> > means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps
install
> > a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> > still be a generic one.
>
> Most x86 distros ship with a boot kernel that will run on
> a 386 with no mathco, but also include kernels that are
> optimized for 486, 586, or 686.
Most? Some. Mandrake doesn't.
> > Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
>
> So, why not stick with RPM 3?
Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video card
problem.
> > With far fewer packages available for them.
>
> All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
No, all RPM packages do not contain tarballs. Where do you get this form?
SRPM's include source, not RPM's.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:58:36 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/7/01 7:22 PM:
>> Um if windows 95,98,and 2k all find hardware that red hat and derivatives
>> don't it is the OS fault if I have to reconfigure perfectly working hardware
>> configs to get linux to see them.
>
> Doesn't matter. If the current configuration of the device prevents an
> OS from recognizing it, and the device would be recognized if it were
> configured differently, then all it says is that the device is
> incorrectly configured for the OS that doesn't recognize it. It
> doesn't matter if other OS's recognize it or not. The device is still
> incorrectly configured for that OS. Thus it is not the fault of the
> OS.
>
> Josh
Bringing this back to the consumer, who should have to touch hardware what
it in fact says is:
"Windows 2000 works. Redhat 6 doesn't."
-G3!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:00:38 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/7/01 6:41 PM:
>> You mean the part where he backs up linux's being a consumer OS (which he
>> stated repeatedly) by pointing out versions specifically targeted at
>> servers, are easy to use?
>
> Where?
>
>> Yeah I caught that one all right.
>
> Where?
>
> Josh
Well considering as I tested my filter for his messages and I don't save
newsgroup messages I can't give you an example but it was definitely there.
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:02:41 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/7/01 6:40 PM:
>>
>> Um because windows 9.x and win2k had NO trouble recognizing it?
>
> Doesn't matter. If it didn't work before you re-seated the video card,
> and did work after re-seating it, I would claim that the seating of
> the card was the problem, not the OS. After all, the OS didn't
> magically change after you re-seated the video card did it?
I didn't reseat it I changed the order the cards were in.
>> Also back before all the UNIX geeks started flaming me for letting reality
>> cloud their bullshit advocacy, this whole debate began with my pointing out
>> UNIX is not in any of its forms a CONSUMER OS, then I pointed out how my
>> experiences had run with TWO commercial packages. Caldera didn't have
>> nearly as many problems but didn't install with any of the sort of things I
>> wanted Linux for so I nixed it and tried red hat.
>
> If your hardware is incorrectly configured, improperly seated, or
> unsupported, then it wouldn't matter how many versions you tried. I
> wouldn't expect any of them to work.
Yes because linux doesn't have good plug in play, nor does it have a wide
enough array of hardware support.
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Try installing Solaris on a Sparc system. You'll find out how very
>>> easy Solaris is to install.
>>
>> How the fuck is that a consumer set up?
>
> Where did Aaron or myself claim that it was?
YOU haven't Aaron did multiple times. If I could magic usenet messages back
into existence then linux not recognizing my stuff wouldn't have been a
problem.
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:08:27 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karel Jansens at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 6:20 PM:
>>> 90% of the PC market.
>>
>> That's a stupid definition.
>
> Not even that.
Um 90% of the PERSONAL COMPUTER market is most assuredly CONSUMERS they are
very much varied, from people who know a LOT about what they're buying to
people who have never used a MOUSE before.
Until ALL of those people can open a shrink wrapped copy of linux and
install it with AT MOST 10% of them having ANY problems then it is not a
consumer OS. Currently at least 50% WOULD have problems.
-G3
------------------------------
From: Ben Reiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 23:11:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, G3
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote various complaints re: linux
You may have already mentioned this; if so, I apologize.
What version of which distribution were you running?
\Ben
--
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard
those who think alike than those who think differently" - Nietzche
"Think Different" - Apple
My address above has no spamproofing - spam me, and I'll get your throwaway
account cancelled, guaranteed.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:12:38 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karel Jansens at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 6:19 PM:
>> 90% of the PC market.
>
> That's plain silly. So everyone who does not buy PC-related stuff is
> not a consumer then?
>
> And how would you label the 10% of the PC-market you don't consider
> consumers?
>
> The _only_ valid definition for a "consumer" is: "Someone who
> purchases goods (s)he did not manufacture her/himself". But as far as
> definitions you can do something useful with, go, that one is pretty
> crappy.
>
> You probably meant that Windows, MacOS (insofar that it can be
> considered separate from the hardware) and linux are targeted at
> different _market_segments_. I can understand that you would prefer
> not to phrase it like that, because once we start looking how the
> contenders are doing in their own segment, the picture changes
> dramatically.
>
> Agreed, Windows occupies by far the largest segment, and linux the
> smallest, but linux is steadily making serious inroads into the
> segments of the "competition", and the opposite is not true.
I was referring to the "consumer market" when the person asked for a
clarification of what I meant by consumer. The "consumer market" referring
to the average, non professional Person Computer user. That would include
everyone who owns a personal computer at home that doesn't use it
exclusively for business. That means COMMODORE 64 users are part of the
consumer market.
Obviously anyone who consumes goods is a consumer, and thus I suppose if we
actually use the dictionary definition of consumer then I suppose any os
would be a consumer OS, since they are all in one way or another operated by
consumers.
I think however that I'll stick to well known industry standard definitions,
having worked for 6 different Mac publications I think I'm a pretty good
authority on what is and isn't a "consumer OS" and linux is most certainly
NOT.
-G3!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:19:13 GMT
In article <Drlg6.786$ig2.16082@news1-hme0>, IC24 wrote:
>i have to say, i run more MS products than i do linux, but there are many
>features of linux i couldnt do without.
That's cool. I think one of the purposes of COLA is to inform
people about the problems and even dangers in using closed source -
proprietary OS's such as MS Windows.
And if the user decides they want to run that OS anyway,
then let them.
>i have windows 2000 pro, Me, and 95 sitting in differant partitions, but i
>still prefer to use linux whenever i can, it crashes less than any MS
>product could ever manage due to the fact that linux isnt full of crap you
>dont need (hmm dont get me started on the bloatware saga!) so all of you can
>stick to windows (i do for the internet, damn windows has taken over the
>modem market and i cant find a hardware modem anywhere!!) but i still prefer
>to have linux sat on a partition somewhere on my computers!
>
>- Drarok Ithaqua
>
>
The last Windows product I used at home was NT 4.0.
I have found that GNOME on Debian 2.2R2 to be an adequate replacement
for this software. So I don't even have Windows installed anymore.
The *ONLY* thing I have from Windows I still use is the .ttf's
which I use xfstt to serve up to X and the rest of my community
of Debian PC's.
I have examined Windows 2000 in detail and run tests and find that
W2k is a slightly improved version of NT. But W2k still isn't the
highly threaded superior performer that Linux is.
By mid summer, evolution will be out in force and I believe evolution
is the last peice of software which is necessary to emulate everything
Microsoft has for the office.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:37:26 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > > > > > > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My questions:
> > > > > > > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating
> > > system?
> > > > > > > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit
> (please
> > > > > > > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is rumored that microsoft is doing some work on
> > > > > > a future 64-bit version of windows.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not rumored, the beta has been available for 3 months publicly.
> > > > Why would you need a new version (rather than build) for 64-bits? By
> the
> > > > time MS Windows came out, it was well known not to make any
> assumptions
> > > > about sizeof(int).
> > >
> > > A) It's a new architecture. It's not x86 compatible. It needs a new
> HAL
> > > at a minimum. Itanium uses 8k pages instead of 4k pages on x86. There
> are
> > > lots of functions (especially low-level file mapping functions) which
> depend
> > > on the size of the page to operate correctly.
> > >
> > > B) It needs 32 bit emulation support for existing binaries.
> > >
> > > C) It needs wider parameters for kernel functions which require memory.
> >
> > Alpha isn't x86 compatible, Sparc isn't x86 or Alpha compatible, PowerPC
> > isn't any of the others, and yet linux was easily ported to all those.
>
> Can you stick to a single topic? You said:
>
> > > > Why would you need a new version (rather than build) for 64-bits? By
> the
> > > > time MS Windows came out, it was well known not to make any
> assumptions
> > > > about sizeof(int).
>
> Clearly you were talking about simply recompiling for a different bitsize,
> and were asking why a port would need to be done.
>
Nah. I'm talking about hacking code together with microprocessor
specific "optimizations" and then loosing the process.
> Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4 kernel.
>
2.4 kernel has lots more than Itanium support.
> > Well, it did take Mad Dog about 6 months to get the first Alpha running.
> > Linux doesn't need x86 support for existing binaries. Just rebuild the
> > application for the target. Sell the new binaries to your existing
> > customers who finally get decent computers.
>
> So where are those Itanium versions of Netscape 4.x?
>
Netscape version 6 runs on Itanium *and* 133 mhz pentiums under Linux.
> > So why doesn't MS just do a rebuild for the new target? Why can't MS,
> > with billions of dollars and thousands of elite programers do with
> > Windows what one man did with Linux for zilch in 6 months?
>
> How long did it take them to port Linux to Itanium? Quite some time.
>
Less than a year to develop Itanium specific code. The whole release was
about 2 years, but I am pretty sure they didn't do any Itanium specific
stuff until about 9 months ago.
> Do you really think they just "rebuilt for a new target" and suddenly
> Itanium worked without any code changes?
>
Mostly. There is the need to add some #ifdef ITANIUM switches and a bit
of Itanium specific code before doing the rebuild though. As soon as
that was done several thousand applications came over with Linux.
> > Answer : MS doesn't know what is in its messed up code base. They did
> > x86 specific hacks instead of good programming (as if 16 bits was the
> > end of the world). Thus they can't just change page size to 8k. They
> > have to go through millions of lines of code and find everywhere someone
> > used 4000 as a page size. I guess "wizards" like magic numbers.
>
> No, for instance the Alpha port of NT and Win2k (until it was canceled) used
> 8k pages as well. The point I was making is that it's not as simple as
> recompiling with a 64 bit compiler.
>
So Linux was able to get an Alpha version running in about 6 months, and
Win2k still doesn't run on Alpha.
> > Do you realise your answer makes MS look really stupid?
>
> No, it makes you completly incapable of sticking to your own topic, since
> you've contradicted yourself twice.
And what were the contradictions?
I maintain that :
1) MS Stupidly hardcoded their OS for 16bit microprocessors, had a
difficult time getting them to run on 32 bit processors, and an even
worse time with 64bit processors.
2) Linux ports to new processors in about 6 months, max. That time is
getting shorter as the experience level with Linux grows.
3)Linux does not have to dumb itself down to support binaries of
existing applications. The Linux model pretty well isolates applications
from the underlying hardware. So most applications just have to do a
rebuild and link to the new libraries.
4)MS operating systems have lots of ways for applications to get
directly to the hardware. Applications that take advantage of those
holes, have to be rewritten to port to another platform.
5)MS Office products make generous use of the holes in MS operating
systems and therefore have to be re-written to port to another platform.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's EF's explanation on this one?
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:41:59 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here goes: when formatting a floppy under Windows 98, one can't do
> > anything else.
>
> Not quite true. Yes, the GUI is fairly well frozen, but non-I/O bound
> processes continue to be scheduled.
>
> This is an artifact of the DOS compatibility, floppy disk access goes
> thorugh the bios (this is what allows IDE floppies to be used without
> special drivers, since the newer BIOS's automatically patch the int13
> vectors to deal with it). BIOS drive access provides very poor performance
> because of the I/O bound locking. The same happens when the IDE drives run
> in "compatibilty mode", but since hard disk writes are so much faster than
> floppy writes, you don't notice the degradation as much (but you can sure
> see an order of magnatude slower disk access).
So you now admit that Windows 98 is just a GUI over DOS! It uses the DOS
calls to do everyday tasks like formatting floppies and accessing hard
drives!
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
