Linux-Advocacy Digest #712, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Mar 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: measuring uptime on Win2000 ("Reefer")
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: The merits of the BSD license. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax) (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What does IQ measure? (turtoni)
Re: Sun Blade 100 ("GreyCloud")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Sun Blade 100 ("GreyCloud")
Re: Harddisk for Linux (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:10:24 GMT
On 8 Mar 2001 03:55:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>The problem with testing people with disabilities is that they may be very
>deficient in one small area, and OK with everything else, and most
>tests are not capable of conveying that information (it's sort of
>like height/weight charts that tell you that bodybuilders are all overweight
>when they actually have less than 10% fat)
True. Like I've said here before, any test or tool is only going to
be accurate near the middle of the expected range of values. Just as
you wouldn't use an oral thermometer to try to bake fudge, you can't
take mass-produced height/weight charts and apply them to people who
have much more than the average amount of body mass accounted for by
muscle. There's a guy in my squadron that is 5'10" or so, and weighs
270 pounds. He has to go through all sorts of heartache twice a year
because he's off the scale (no pun intended) on the Navy height/weight
charts, but he has very little body fat and can benchpress a small
imported car.
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:18:40 +1300
> > > The person who solves the problem first.
> >
> > I'd claim the person who solved it best.
>
> Here's a problem.
>
> 25.312 X 19.598 = ?
>
> Person A gets the correct answer in 2.3 seconds.
>
> Person B gets the correct answer in 23 seconds.
>
> Who's solution is the best?
>
> However person, A costs me 11 times more per hour than person B.
>
> Now who's solution is best?
>
> Oh, but I needed the answer in under 5 seconds or I died.
>
> Now what?
>
> Define best.
I can only define best for a specific instance. The point I was trying
to make is that there is often more than one solution to a problem, and
in my own experience, there is often a way that appears simple, and you
might jump straight into doing it... only to find it it actually makes
things more difficult than a second, less-obvious method.
For a simple math problem, who gives a fuck? A calculator will give you
the best answer, in under 5 seconds provided you have some manual
dexterity, and it wont cost you anything. ;)
I don't consider a simple multiplication a test of anyone's intelligence,
only a very simple test for the lack of it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 9 Mar 2001 01:19:47 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:34:42 GMT, Scott Gardner wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 19:46:13 -0800, "Paolo Ciambotti"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know exactly what you mean. I have the opposite problem, although I
>don't think it's actually a condition or a disability, I think it's
>just something I'm not particularly good at. I have a hard time
>thinking in three dimensions, and N-dimensional space makes my brain
>hurt. I've always done extremely well on standardized tests and IQ
>tests, but there are types of problems I just don't do well on at all.
>For example, the problems where you're given a patterned cube, shown
>unfolded, and have to tell what the cube will look like when it is
>folded together stump me.
A surprising amount of N-dimensional problems are just generalised
flat-world problems. Visualising anything that doesn't fit into
R^3 is not very easy, but then you rarely have to do it. (even when
solving advanced geometric problems) A lot of N-dimensional math
boils down to either generalising flat-world arguments, or choosing
projections / ( or suitably embedded subspaces ) and reducing problems
to flat world arguments. Or simply forgetting about geometry
altogether, and taking a purely analytical/algebraic approach.
Thinking in N dimensions is very difficult (in fact I almost doubt
whether anyone does such a thing -- are they really "seeing" in N
dimensions or are they implicitly using the reduction techniques I
mention above ?)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:23:45 GMT
On 8 Mar 2001 11:15:56 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allisson) wrote:
Aaron wrote:
>>But we don't have to put "faith" in the tests. We put faith
>>in the data, because irrationality is the only alternative to
>>believing what you can measure repeatedly. See:
>>
>>http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/1198intelligence/1198gottfredbox2.html
>>
>>to get an idea of what IQ tests measure (a person's probabilities
>>of particular social outcomes).
I disagree. IQ tests do not measure work ethic, perserverance,
creativity, resilience, or a host of other factors that help people
succeed in life (or to use your terms, reach a favorable "social
outcome". While there is a correlation between intelligence and
social outcome, it is statistically incorrect to say that intelligence
tests "measure a person's probabilities of particular social
outcomes". Your reasoning is an example of the "post hoc ergo propter
hoc" fallacy -- assuming that just because an outcome follows a
condition, that the condition necessarily determined or caused the
outcome.
To follow your argument, a high level of intelligence, as
measured by an IQ test, would overcome laziness, weak will, lack of
creative thought, or anything else, while a hard-working, proactive,
tenacious person with a lower IQ would likely fall into a lower social
outcome. Social outcome also depends to a large degree on where in
the social strata you started off. How often do people born to wealth
and success end up in poverty and misery, and vice versa? A person's
initial social status is not reflected in IQ test scores, but it sure
as hell plays a role in how far a person gets in life, along with the
other non-intelligence traits I mentioned above.
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 Mar 2001 17:26:59 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On 7 Mar 2001 23:56:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The key debatable point here is whether or not the GPL's rules are of
> >the type that lead to greater freedom. I don't think they are,
> >but I also dislike this line of argument that claims the only
> >way for a license to be free is for it to have absolutely no rules
> >attached at all.
Steve,
Your point is not worth debating until we define "greater freedom".
First, greater than what? Then, what is freedom? Good luck.
(The GNU "free software" freedom is explained as the freedom of users
to redistribute it , run it, view it, and publish modifications of it.
But this doesn't take us far since it uses the word to define it.
I claim that one does not have the freedom to publish modifications of
copyleft software. I claim that M$ is not free to use "readline" in
M$Office if M$ has to publish the source of their billion dollar
software to use it. I claim that if you hav to agree to someone's terms
before you may do something, you are not free to do it. But others may
define "free" to void my claims.)
Even if your debatable point can be proved one way or another, that
doesn't mean it the GPL is the best license. Maybe the goal should
be "competition/advancement". Or "amount of code". Or "reliability".
Or "highest number of users". Or "highest standard of living for
software developers". Or "freedom" of some other kind.
> The only rules that need to be attached are those that prevent people from
> taking code released freely and making it no longer available at all to
> anyone under the terms it was originally released. Fortunately, it is not
> necessary to write such rules into the license; they are inherent in the
> body of law that licenses are a part of. BSD-licensed code can NEVER be made
> non-free, even though the BSDL contains no explicit provisions to guarantee
> that. Thus, the GPV is restrictive beyond that necessary to guarantee
> freedom, and thus it is not free.
Jay,
The extra restrictions of the GPL ARE necessary, if your definition of
"freedom" includes the freedom to "redistribute, run, view, and publish
modifications of" the code of people who make derivatives of your code.
In short, the freedom to benefit from other people's work. (And to give
that freedom to many others.) The BSDL's "freedom" applies only to the
licensor's own work. It's a bizzare and misleading concept (the
language, not the copyleft scheme), but it CAN be defended. Copyright
law gives the GPL licensor partial ownership in the code of derivatives
so it's not unreasonable to claim the freedom to exercise ownership
rights. Even if it is only shared ownership. Even if the sharing is
very lop-sided and the leverage being exerted is so great as to be
unfair in some eyes. Even if it leads to a host of entanglements.
Even if it has the disadvantage of discouraging the reuse of code (in
closed code) (it does have the benefit of encouraging people to write
open (under most definitions) code). It's not unreasonable; it's just
that we find this use of "freedom" distasteful. We may or may not
find the use of the copyleft scheme distasteful; that issue should be
discussed separately.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:29:15 +1300
> I can't speak for the people *you* know, since I probably don't know
> them. but based on the huge number of copies of Windows that have been
> sold, I'd be surprised to find that for every person that bought a
> copy, there are nineteen pirated copies floating around out there.
> For that to be true, every man, woman, child, and house pet would have
> to have a couple copies. Personally, I don't view Windows as being
> that expensive, all things considered. I bought a computer in 1990
> with Windows 3.0, and I've done the $89 upgrade route with each new
> version. Considering the amount I've spent on other parts of my
> computer over the same time period, I just wouldn't feel right about
> stealing the operating system.
I paid for Windows 3.0, and ever since then I haven't felt right about
paying for Windows at all.
> Scott "But hell, I register shareware, too..." Gardner
Then you're a damn fine human being.
------------------------------
From: "Reefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: measuring uptime on Win2000
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:32:12 GMT
"> > As I was rebooting my Win2000 box last night (so my son could
> > print from his Win2000 box.) I was wondering how to measure
> > uptime on a WinNT or Win2000 system. Is there an equivalent of
> > an uptime command?
>
> There's an uptime command in the Resource Kit, or you can go to by Mark
> Russinovich's Sysinternals web site - www.sysinternals.com - and get
> psuptime.
Or..even better, download and install this one ;)
http://microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/downloads/management/uptime/default.asp
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 9 Mar 2001 01:35:13 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:21:03 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>I was complaining that people out there are blindly trusting SSH
>for secure information transfer and there are several ways in which
>that information security could be compromised
We've already been through this. It's very unlikely to happen. People
who care enough about security that they're unwilling to take any risks
at all do not "blindly trust" anything.
> and the SSH folks
>don't seem to care
Yes they do. They take bugs very seriously. The OpenBSD developers are one
of the few groups who proactively stomp out potential security holes (AKA
bugs)
> let alone attempt to warn the community of
>the problems in the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol.
It is considerably less "fundamentally flawed" than the vast
majority of services. Perhaps if there were large amounts of users
running nothing besides ssh, it would be an issue. However, on a
"typical UNIX machine" that is running NFS, NIS, telnet, ftp, httpd,
sendmail, and lpd, ssh is the least of your concerns (even if it's the
"fundamentally flawed" version)
BTW, OpenSSH supports ssh2.
>The vulnerabilities in SSH would only indirectly cause a root
>exploit (transmittal of a telnet-able user and pass, and then
>the transmittal of the su and pass strings), as far as I can
>tell.
You would need to listen in on and hijack a connection to do this.
I believe this requires you to be on the same network as the user.
I've seen the description of what the potential attacks involve, and
you would need one hell of a good cracker to utilise most of them, and
they'd have to be on the same network. (the MITM attack OTOH only
works if the user is stupid enough to ignore the dire warning
that ssh issues if the host key is changed)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:36:47 +1300
> > > The person who solves the problem first.
> >
> > I'd claim the person who solved it best.
>
> Solved is solved.
You think all solutions are equal?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:37:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller wrote:
>Sure, you sacrifice some consistency. But, I like to think of multiple
>toolkits and GUI's on Linux as more of artistic freedom. I think that there
>are enough unix apps around that, if you don't like a particular app's GUI,
>you can also choose from a similar app linked to a different toolkit.
>Besides, no matter which toolkit you use, the standard X cuting and pasting
>mechanism of left-click highlight/middle-click paste *always* works. So,
>what's the problem?
>
I like to think of multiple toolkits within the X series as a simple
way to keep from throwing up at home.
They have to keep a pan under me at work.
Windows mono-blather is extremely sickly. Especially when
combined with corporate-blather policy.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:38:17 GMT
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:42:44 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Actually, those in the top centiles of IQ marry MORE often...especially
>the men. The difference is...just like everything else they do...they
>do so INTELLIGENTLY.
This threw me for a loop at first. I was wondering why, if they marry
so intelligently, they're doing it "more often" (ie, repeatedly). Of
course I realize what you meant was that people in the top percentiles
of IQ are more likely to be married... Was still good for a laugh in
my moment of confusion...
>
>I know a LOT of dumbasses who got married at 19-20, and were already
>divorced within 5 years of graduating from high school. Those who
>are more intelligent pause to consider exactly what they are getting
>into...and tell those who are obviously unsuitable to go take a hike
>before getting themselves trapped in a bad marriage....prefering to
>wait for someone who is truly worthwhile.
This reminds me of one of my pet theories (of course, I realized it
wasn't an original, or even new, theory when I recently read a David
Niven novel, but I can still claim to have come up with it
independently! (grin) Here goes:
One of the drawbacks of a sufficiently-advanced society is
that virtually *everyone* survives to breeding age. Read a news story
about some 19-year old dumbass that wraps his truck around a phone
pole drag racing on city streets, simultaneously snorting a line of
coke and talking on a cell phone, and as often as not, you'll find
he's already had kids. With protection from the elements and
wildlife, a stable government and economy, and advanced medical
technology, unless you were born sterile, you have a good chance of
breeding. We've escaped the petri dish--the laws of natural selection
no longer apply to us on a grand scale.
Along the same lines, I've also noticed that the married
couples that make the conscious decision to be "child-free" tend to be
from the higher strata on the intelligence distribution. This is
opposed to "childless", which I use to describe people that want
children but haven't conceived yet, for whatever reason. I've seen
these people evenly-spread all over the distribution curve. If the
less-intelligent people are having more children per capita than those
who are more intelligent, are we systematically "dumbing down" our
species? Or does heredity play no part whatsoever in intelligence?
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The merits of the BSD license.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:38:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Pulsford wrote:
>There has been some discussion about the GPL lately, I'd like to bring
>up a little discussion about the BSDL.
>
>The BSD license is a permissive license that basically allows you to do
>whatever you want with the software. This is the guts of it:
>
And here is the synopsis of it.
BSDI decides to make 5.0 proprietary.
Palms get greased good.
BSD open license disappears.
Nobody can do anything about it.
With the GPL this can't possibly happen.
End of discussion.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax)
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:41:33 +1300
> > But there are many criteria to judge something by.
>
> According my criterium Windows works much better when left within the
> box. It's when you take it out of the box that the problems start :-)
Microsoft Support tell me you can fix nearly all those problems with a
simple re-box ;)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:40:31 GMT
In article <Z9Op6.28092$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>
>You're right about the Einstein part: I was being sarcastic. But my score
>was high enough to put me well into the 99th percentile.
>
>-- Mike --
>
This makes me just poopie.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: turtoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:47:43 -0600
Scott Gardner wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:49:34 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Part of the definition of intelligence is arriving at the correct
> >answer quickly.
> >
> >If you gave a 13-year old child the following math problem:
> >
> > X = 20 / 4
> >
> > What is X?
> >
> >
> What about the (possibly apocryphal) story of the classroom that is
> given the assignment to add up all the integers from 1 to 100? All of
> the students but one immediately see the method to the solution, and
> start adding 1+2+3+4+5..., while one lone student just stares at his
> paper in silence. The teacher notices this, and goes over to help the
> student along. When she approaches him, he looks up and says "The
> answer is 5,050." He figured out that the 100 numbers in question
> could be grouped into 50 pairs of numbers (1,100), (2,99), (2,98),
> etcetera, and that furthermore, each of those pairs of numbers summed
> to 101. The product of 50 times 101 is a pretty easy calculation, and
> results in the correct answer of 5,050. Additionally, he could do the
> same thing with an arbitrarily long string of sequential integers, so
> even if his exercise had taken longer than the other students, (which
> it probably didn't), it could be argued that his was the more
> "intelligent" approach, even if he didn't figure out this method as
> quickly as the other students figured out the "brute force" method.
true. although all these concepts are pretty broad band.
we can all be trained to approach puzzles like this given enough time.
spending more time doing something does not imo make somebody of lesser
intelligence.
turtoni - just less skilled in that department at that moment in time.
imo.
> Scott Gardner
> LT US NAvy
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:39:15 -0800
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> DOn't waste your time running crap on a Sparc, use Solaris for
> christsake! more stable, developed and hardware support for Solaris
> Sparc than Linux Sparc.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> Tim Cain wrote:
Sun has web space devoted to the new future of Gnome for Solaris. Sun is
moving away from CDE as was
stated by their CEO. Sun remarked that Gnome is more in line with their
networking philosophy. Sun has
apparently reworked and debugged Gnome and is now supported by Sun. But,...
I'm still waiting to see
just how good the sun blade is. Sun did comment that one can install a
board that will allow you to run
wintel stuff. I don't need that part but somebody else may like that
feature. I'd just like to see them
bring the price of their compilers down out of the clouds. I found out the
hard way that Suns Perl won't interface with gcc because sun compiled Perl
using their own compiler. Gcc works well with the rest of their libraries
tho.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:45:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <986g59$t6k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Certainly. What do I get in return?
>>
>> Absoloutely nothing of any use whatsoever.
>
>But that's not what you get if you buy Windows!
>
>> How about a rusty old bike wheel?
>
>Again, that's not even remotely equivalent to Windows!
>
Oh shure it is. Anybody who uses a modern X environment with
either KDE or Gnome then uses W2k and comes away with the
impression W2k is superior has worms for brains.
>> Now let me guess. You're not willing to pay me £30 for something utterly
>> useless are you. Bearing this thought in mind, reread the thread.
>
>I repeat: Windows is not utterly useless.
>
Pete!
You might as well attempt to nurse your young on YOUR NIPPLES
as use Windows in a business environment.
It's still the bluescreening, buggy, license ridden shit
it always has been since day 1.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:49:16 -0800
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > And now that Compaq bought out digital they have sat on the Alpha chip
> > doing fuck all development! Fuck, if I was Compaq and spent billions
> > buying the bloody company, I would use the alpha technology to its full
> > potential, instead, they are sitting on the alpha CPU and selling third
> > rate 32bit servers to the stupid wintel crowd, never dominated by
> > techno-people, but by CEOs and C*O's who want to suck bills cock instead
> > of getting a decent server and setup.
Man, you've hit that nail on the head!! Compaq makes some pretty shaky
products.
A couple of years ago I brought one home because it came with a 120Mb floppy
drive.
I put in a micro floppy and then tried to browse the floppy. BSOD every
time, so I
took it back and got my money back! I tried to install linux on it and
linux couldn't recognize
that double duty floppy drive.
There is a rumour running around on comp.os.vms that compaq may be
getting ready to
sell of the vms division... many speculations that it might be Samsung.
Am I correct in my info about the Alpha chip that it has 256 orthogonal
registers??
If it does it truly is a very powerful chip. One inidividual witnessed
Compaqs' CEO addressing
business and was touting tru64 o/s. Never once mentioned vms. Compaqs'
focus is on
win2k and tru64, and a mention of doing in Aix, Solaris, and Linux. I think
Sun has already
outgunned Compaq by providing lower cost systems that are aimed for tight
budgets and
a lousy economy.
> True -- Compaq is a very sad excuse for a computer company. Also bear
> in mind the fact that Compaq is selling crappy, watered-down OEM
> versions of otherwise excellent Asus mobo's in their crappy Winternet
> PC's, complete with crappy WinHW where ever appropriate. Good lord, it
> had to be Compaq that "saved" digital. I sure someone comes along and
> saves Digital. It was a fine company until Win-shit-HW maker Compaq
> came along.
>
>
> -----= 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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Harddisk for Linux
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:56:51 -0500
> Jerry Wong wrote:
>
> I want to buy a 30G Harddisk to install Linux (Red Hat 7.0). I heard that
> Lilo has problem for the harddisk over 1024 cylinder. Has this problem be
> overcome?
As a point of fact, Lilo never had a problem with large disks. It was the P.C.
BIOS that had the problem.
On systems where 1024 cylinders, i.e. SCSI, lilo had no problems.
The issue is that the PC BIOS could not address a disk with too large a number
of heads or cylinders, the work around was to make a small "boot" partition,
well within the 1024, 16 head, 63 sector limit.
Most modern BIOS supplied on motherboards today can provide enough information
to boot correctly through a new API.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
