Linux-Advocacy Digest #86, Volume #33 Sun, 25 Mar 01 23:13:12 EST
Contents:
Re: FW: Ethics of Circumventing OS (GreyCloud)
Re: What is user friendly? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What is user friendly? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (David Steinberg)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Brent R)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: FW: Ethics of Circumventing OS
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:09:24 -0800
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 04:25:01 GMT, Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >--------------AFDADA05CFFDF84181EE9394
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >
> >
> >Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I recently came across an article in the Internet developer publication,
> >> Webtechniques <http://www.webtechniques.com/>. The article entitled 'Can
> >> CORBA Sidestep Open-Source Licensing?'
> >
> >Actually, this is no accident. Both GNOME and KDE deliberately chose
> >to use CORBA to make it possible to create both Open Source and
> >proprietary components.
>
> Rex, dear poseur, where on earth did you get that information?
>
> For one thing, I was there when KDE decided to use CORBA, and I
> was there later, when KDE decided to stop using CORBA, and I was
> there in between both times, and I can tell you that at no time
> was sucha thing even considered.
>
> I expect GNOME to have had that in mind, since they expected to
> use the GPL-incompatible Mozilla component through some CORBA
> loophole, though.
>
> Further, whether accessing a component through CORBA is any
> different from accessing it through a dynamic library is
> really a thorny legal question.
>
> RMS says that CORBA saves you from the tainting, yet I see
> no argument for it. Of course IMHO dynamic libs should save
> you too.
>
> > Trolltech makes a number of components
> >for which it does charge the standard developer royalty of
> >$6000/programmer.
>
> Oh, yeah? Name them. I can point out that you are completely
> wrong, and that you are a liar, for I have told you that and
> pointed it out in the past already.
>
> Anyone reading this: don´t take ANYTHING Rex says as true
> if you can´t check it. Right now, check www.troll.com,
> read the pricing, and notice how Rex is LYING.
>
> >The LGPL was carefully worded to enable those who wished to
> >call Open Source library routines and components,
>
> WHAT? The LGPL was worded before the term Open Source was
> even created!!!!
>
> Further, the main ideologist of the LGPL dislikes and opposes
> the very Open Source term!
>
> [snip even more ignorant babbling]
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
Found another monkey stuck in a coconut? That glitz sure gets them
don't it. :-)
--
V
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:09 GMT
Said Matt Kennel in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:22:25
+0000 (UTC);
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:21:54 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:Said Quantum Leaper in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Mar 2001
>:No, you have it backwards. Linux advocates think Linux is good
>:software. Windows is 'magic' in comparison, because no scientific
>:knowledge is sufficient to guess how it's going to crash, today. Linux
>:isn't magic, because its bugs or failures are repeatable and verifiable,
>
>I agree, except when it comes to browsers for some reason. All of
>them hang or crash unpredictably for me.
>
>{Netscape 4, many Mozillas, KDE2 Konqueror, Opera)
The true test of an application specification is internetworking. If
you can work reliably when nothing is reliable, then you get the kind of
essentially bullet-proof real-life behavior of such systems as ftp,
nntp, snmp, smtp, dns, et. al,. Having been developed so much "in the
Microsoft world" (by which I mean during the reign of the illegal
monopoly), it somehow doesn't surprise me that web browsers tend to be
rather fragile.
What I mean to say is that it might be the "application" (from a
networking sense) rather than the code, which is the problem, so the
quality of the programming has little to do with it. While the server
acts predictably (if incorrectly) and even if "the network" is
functioning reliably, the massive pastiche of crud that is the
quasi-defined equivalent of a "transaction" on "the web" no doubt makes
it tough for even the best code from working predictably.
Had not Microsoft made competitive development of interoperable
technology not so entirely impossible, I'm sure we'd have several
functioning (and with typical, predictable, essentially bullet-proof
real-life behavior) mechanisms which would far surpass "the web" in
functionality and popularity. Usenet might even become popular, though
complex processing of pure text messages seems an idea almost doomed to
failure.
>:whereas Microsoft's are non-repeatable, semi-random, and entirely
>:deniable.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:12 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:43:21
GMT;
>Path:
>news3.voicenet.com!news.voicenet.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!europa.netcrusader.net!192.148.253.68!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!POSTED.monger.newsread.com!not-for-mail
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
>Newsgroups: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy
>Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <qxcu6.624$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <wVdu6.667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <y4fu6.684$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><5sfu6.694$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <99d7oh$nvf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Kulkis is a Dumbass)
>Lines: 12
>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:43:21 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.126.165.159
>X-Complaints-To: Abuse Role <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, We Care <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Trace: monger.newsread.com 985477401 216.126.165.159 (Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:43:21 EST)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:43:21 EST
>Organization: InterNet Resource NETworks (inr.net)
>Xref: news.voicenet.com alt.destroy.microsoft:174302 comp.os.linux.advocacy:504051
>
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:28:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone here doubts the ease with which it can be
>> accomplished, and many are familiar with the necessary technique.
>
>What User-Agent do you see in the header on *this* post? Maybe Aaron
>could respond the same way.
>
>--
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
'Tis not so deep as a river, nor so wide as a cavern, but it is enough;
it will do.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:14 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Mar 2001
Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>> That is SO untrue. NOT _every_ Fortune 500 company has a shitload of
>> COBOL apps, some of these (mostly in the Top 100) have NO cobol. The
>> company I work for does a LOT of ASP services for Fortune 100 companies
>> (including one of the top 25) and we rarely seen unix boxes let alone
>> cobol. Sometimes they are there in the basement running legacy apps or
>> their calling-card web sites but the real back-ends run Windows NT doing
>> things with Exchange servers, IIS, SQL Server and so on.
>>
>What planet do you live on?
A virtual one, I'd expect, where if it isn't on the Web, it isn't "IT".
:-)
>The main bulk of computing work done in the "Fortune 100" is still done
>and will be done by big iron, not some laughing stock like W2K. *That* is
>used to type some memos or make some powerpoint slides. You wouldn´t
>believe that stuff that Windows-machines are actually used for serious
>work, wouldn´t you?
I think it was probably obvious to quite a few people here that Jan has
a very limited perspective. As if since they don't let him touch
anything important, it's "some old legacy stuff in the basement", while
his puny web stuff is where all the "real computing" is going on.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:17 GMT
Said Jon Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Mar 2001 16:01:10
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ouch! Yet another BIND exploiting worm that looks particularly nasty.
>>
>> As usual:
>>
>> "The only machines that are becoming infected are machines
>> that haven't been kept up to date with security patches."
>
>
>JUST like what happens to MS OS boxes without up to date patches - but watch
>how this is a valid excuse for linux lovers but not for the rest of the
>world...
You're apparently under the impression that the baseline for this
conversation starts with us believing all the bullshit that MS claims
and that their sock puppets propagate. MS is notoriously a month late
and a million dollars short, their patches break things, and merely work
around *fundamental vulnerabilities* of a proprietary piece of monopoly
crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:16 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Mar 2001
16:32:11 -0500;
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 23 Mar 2001
>> 13:15:27 -0500;
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 21 Mar 2001
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>>> Show me a more
>>>>>> moderate opinion than the one I have, and I'll adopt it.
>>>>> You've been shown significantly more moderate positions than you have.
>>>> I'm afraid you're in error. If this were the case, I'd have adopted
>>>> them. QED
>>> Not QED at all. The problem is that you've redefined your extremist
>>> (and illogical) point of view as "moderate." The reality is that you
>>> aren't in touch with reality.
>> And you should know, being the Grand High Master of Reality, eh?
>
>No, I actually bother to listen to other people's opinions, when they
>can back them up. You, however, not only don't listen, but don't even
>base your opinions on things factual.
Has anybody else noticed that Austin here seems to have wittled the
discussion down to a constant stream of ad hominems directed at me?
>(Need I remind you of your
>embarrassing verbal whippings at the hands of Lee Hollaar who
>demonstrated that you know less about copyright law than, say, a rock?
I'm afraid you'd have to, as no such incident has ever occurred, though
it is obvious you would surely like it to have.
>That's right, you don't admit that you were shown to be an ignorant
>blowhard -- you pretended it was Lee that was playing with the language
>instead of yourself.)
No, I finally figured out what Mr. Hollaar was trying to say, and then
demonstrated to the world why he was wrong, despite his supposed
credentials.
>>>>> For the most famous one, you might even want to look at ESB. Your
>>>>> obvious and stated hatred for anything not-GPL demonstrates no
>>>>> moderation at all.
>>>> Spoken like a true extremist.
>>> I'm reporting facts -- and I'm an extremist for it?
>> You are an extremist for calling it that.
>
>Nice circular definition.
You should try harder. There is no circular definition there, though it
was a rhetorical device I used to point out how useless your position
is, which may seem similar if you aren't paying attention.
Similar to the way you unilaterally claimed that what you are doing is
"reporting facts", as if you and you alone merit the promotion of your
opinion to the level of "fact".
>I don't expect anything else from you, but
>you've demonstrated a strong dislike of any licence which is not the
>GPL -- and it's really difficult to tell the difference between that
>and hatred given your stridency and ignorance of the facts. (Your motto
>does appear to be "don't confuse me with the facts," as you tend to
>ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceptions.)
[...]
>Bully for you. You still haven't managed to admit the truth to
>yourself, much less to those you're lying to on gmd.
You're wasting my time. I'll assume it's because you've been thoroughly
spanked, and have nothing more to add but continued ad hominem attacks,
so I'll be going, again.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:18 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 24 Mar 2001 17:06:06
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 23 Mar 2001 17:10:01 -0600, Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> You have to be running an unpatched version of BIND to fall victim to
>> >> this. Normal Linux workstations do not run BIND, even most servers
>> >> don't. This is mainly a problem for DNS admins.
>>
>> >ZDNet too apparently ...
>> >
>> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0%2C4586%2C2700665%2C00.html
>>
>> ZDNet too what? So they have the same report. How does that impact
>> what I said at all? It is only a problem for machines that run BIND,
>> which is a small minority of all Linux machines. The worm is a problem
>> for DNS admins (and then only ones who haven't been paying attention for
>> the last three months), not everybody who runs Linux.
>>
>> Do you even bother to read what people say to you?
>
>Dude, jezuz, chill. I agreed with you. Man, the anti-MS types are so
>paranoid and touchy...
More like "honest and smarter than the sock puppets." Woops.
>We know it's a bind problem and we know it's not affecting every linux box.
Is that the royal "we", or the sock puppet "we"?
>JUST like how many "windows" viruses don't affect everyone and the
>protection against it was probably already available but simply not used.
Yea, right. Like MS has an admirable record on security problems.
Uh-huh. Tell us another one, daddy, we're not sleepy yet!
>Put it this way, the current version of Office is XP and both of the service
>packs for Office 2000 have all included the mandatory Outlook e-mail
>security patch. This patch completely eliminates the threat of e-mail born
>script attacks. These have been out for a year. ANYONE getting hit by
>something like that anna virus lately is stupid. The patch to prevent it
>from happening is out there and the standard. You shouldn't be running
>unknown scripts on your system anyway. So, these are NOT MS/Windows problems
>or vulnerabilities - they are stupid user issues. Will you remember that if
>there is another anna virus? Somehow I doubt it...
Jan, could you give me some help? I have Windows95b running Office 97
with Outlook 97. Where is the patch that would completely eliminate the
threat of e-mail born script attacks which doesn't require upgrading to
Microsoft's newest monopoly crapware?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:19 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:07:37
>"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >So, these are NOT MS/Windows problems
>> >or vulnerabilities - they are stupid user issues.
>>
>> But I thought Windoze was the OS that stupid users could use, without
>> knowing how to use a computer, because it Just Works(tm) and all that
>> good stuff.
>
>So, if a user on *nix saves an attachment and runs it and it has
>a trojan in it, they somehow are magically unaffected by the trojan?
See? Back and forth, back and forth. First its "user friendly", then
it "requires competence". Back and forth and back and forth. First
it's an application, then its a "platform. Back and forth. First it's
the 'reliable de facto standard desktop', then its 'a toy OS that
everybody knows is unreliable'. First they're resellers, then they're
customers. First it's Windows+DOS, then its just Windows. Back and
forth, back and forth.
Round and round it goes, and where it stops, everybody knows: monopoly
crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:19 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:04:05
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3abd27cf$0$28168$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On 23 Mar 2001 17:10:01 -0600, Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > >> You have to be running an unpatched version of BIND to fall victim to
>> > >> this. Normal Linux workstations do not run BIND, even most servers
>> > >> don't. This is mainly a problem for DNS admins.
>> >
>> > >ZDNet too apparently ...
>> > >
>> > >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0%2C4586%2C2700665%2C00.html
>> >
>> > ZDNet too what? So they have the same report. How does that impact
>> > what I said at all? It is only a problem for machines that run BIND,
>> > which is a small minority of all Linux machines. The worm is a problem
>> > for DNS admins (and then only ones who haven't been paying attention for
>> > the last three months), not everybody who runs Linux.
>> >
>> > Do you even bother to read what people say to you?
>>
>> Dude, jezuz, chill. I agreed with you. Man, the anti-MS types are so
>> paranoid and touchy...
>
>So are the OS/2 people. When they realize that their choice of OS
>was a niche one made on an implusive and whimsical decision (like
>because they "hate" MS or other such stupidities) and then that
>choice of OS begins to crumble away, they get a little defensive and
>testy. Macvocates are the worst because they get jerked around so
>much. It's not a niche OS, then it is a niche OS, and back and forth.
That's because they don't know what we know; that Microsoft's illegal
actions are the only thing that made their choice to use OS/2 anything
but a credible and intelligent choice.
Not that I can see why Chad ("The 'dumb' sock puppet") Myers decided to
change the subject so abruptly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:29:20 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 23 Mar 2001
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jon Johanson wrote:
>> >
>> [old news snipped]
>>
>> Old news dude, a patch has been out for a while.
>
>The new worm is not old news, though it does exploit a hole which is old
>news.
>
>> Secondly, there is a big difference between exploiting a bug to do damage vs
>> exploiting a badly designed OS and e-mail system to do damage.
>
>Most of the exploits we've seen have been the result of bugs, specifically
>with components that are marked as safe for scripting when they're not.
That hardly qualifies as a "bug", I should think, though we know how
much Microsoft likes to play games with that word.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: 26 Mar 2001 03:29:56 GMT
Brian Rourke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:50:24 -0500, "Masha Ku' Inanna"
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >You might want to try to use PM to create a small partition using the first
: >32MB of the hard drive, and label that as /boot for Linux.
: This looks like good advice, thanks. Right now, I only have the
: PartitionMagic utility that came with Mandrake, so I can't control
: where the different partitions go on the drive.
I'm not so sure about that advice. It sounds to me like you're saying
that the kernel is booting from the CD or floppy, the installation is
starting, but is dying BEFORE you even get the chance to partition the
disk (not in Partition Magic, but in the installation program under
Linux). Is that correct? If so, I wouldn't think it has anything to do
with 1024 cylinder limit. The limit is only a problem until the kernel
has booted. One the kernel is running, it should be able to access the
whole hard drive. In other words, people don't experience this problem
until after they've completed in the installation and attempt to boot
Linux off the hard drive.
It sounds more like your hard drive controller isn't supported at all by
the kernel you're attempting to boot. You really should try to find out
more details about your controller than "Ultra ATA Controller for
Windows." If your PC didn't come with documentation that specifies the
manufacturer and model of the controller, you should try to find out from
Gateway.
Once you find out what kind of controller it is, we can figure out if it
is supported by the kernel on your installation media. What version of
Mandrake are you using?
If this is the problem, it is a bit of a nasty one. Since Linux can't see
your hard drive, you don't have a lot of room to fix things. You really
have to find and use someone else's solution. Usually, there is a
solution to be found.
Honestly, this is the kind of problem that the distribution should be
dealing with. Why not give the tech support another try? They could
probably help you figure out if it is a hardware problem, and they might
even have an installation disk with a patched kernel. If it won't support
your hard drive, and they can't help you, I think you are totally within
your rights to demand your money back.
I do know that Debian has a boot disk that's patched to support more
new hard drive controllers. I don't know what Mandrake and Red Hat are
like in this respect because, when I was using them, I had a standard
controller that didn't need special support.
Anyways, I think the place to start is finding out what kind of controller
you've got.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:30:37 GMT
Brian Rourke wrote:
<snip>
> I have tried to install three different Linux distributions on my PC,
> and each attempt has failed in exactly the same way. Though my hard
> drive is partitioned in exactly the way the manuals instruct, the
> installation software always fails to detect my hard drive and
> reboots.
1) Did you get an error message?
2) If so, what exactly did it say?
3) If not, why do you think it fails to see your hard drive?
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
