Linux-Advocacy Digest #773, Volume #34 Fri, 25 May 01 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Time to bitc__ again (Steve Campbell)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Zsolt)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (JS \ PL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:57:45 +0000
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> > The other question is, of course, do they *want* to be found?
>> > It doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand that there is a good
>> > chance that they don't.
>> > Brin's Earth is a story about ETs finding humanity.
>> >
>> > Paranoia is a survival trait, after all.
>> >
>>
>> Scientific curiosity might very well be a 'survival trait' to advanced
>> civilisations. Even stupid us have already sent messages to hypothetical
>> aliens.
>
> ISTR that in several "get in touch with aliens", pruposed ways to do so
> has been tested, and no one was able to crack them.
>
I was referring to the messages that have been sent into interstellar
space, using the Arecibo Antenna. I forget what stars they were aiming for
(Epsilon Eridani, probably).
And then there are the Pioneer and Voyager messages, although we do not
have to worry about those getting into alien tentacles for a couple of tens
of thousands of years.
> Scientific curiosity is wonderful, but I would hardly call it survival
> trait. It tend to kill people more often that not. :-D
> As far as we know, they worship Murphy.
>
You are correct in that curiosity kills both felines and primates, but is
it good or bad for a civilisation as a whole?
>> If there are 'others', it will only take one social deviant with a
>> high-power radio transmitter (Who knows, they may come free with the
>> local equivalent of breakfast cereal) to break an entire civilisation's
>> self-pronounced quarantaine.
>
> You need some *high* power radio transmitter to do this. Especially over
> serious distances. I'm talking military grade staff here.
> And you need to activate it continously.
>
It is military grade to us, but it might be child's toys for a more
advanced culture.
> In addition to that, anything that will be sent on space is likely to be
> compressed, which tend to eliminate repetitive patterns, which is what
> SETI and the like are listenning to.
>
Normal communication, between partners that already know each other, will
likely use some kind of compression algorithm (although, with an answering
return time of decades or even centuries, parties might not be that overly
concerned about message compression), but I am talking about a "Yo! We are
here! Is anybody listening?" kind of message. Using compression in those
would be useless and even stupid.
>> > It would be intellectually nice to know that we aren't alone in the
>> > universe, would it be practically wise?
>>
>> As with everything else we discover, we'll know afterwards.
>
> And as usually with this stuff, it may be too late.
>
>> (As a sidenote, the last words uttered in the Universe might very well
> turn
>> out to be: "I wonder what'll happen if I push this button?"; possibly
>> followed by a short and abruptly broken off "Aaarrggh-")
>
> Isn't it a Terrry Prachett qoute?
>
Heh. Sort of. It is in line with his general philosophy.
But _I_ did use a similar quote as a sig for a while
(From memory:)
====================================================================
"Now... What'll happen if I do this?" Ponder mused.
...
DON'T YOU WISH NOW YOU HADN'T DONE THAT?
"Apprentomancer" (Terry Pratchett, the B-space collection) (*)
====================================================================
(*) B-space is a technical, Pratcherian term. If you do not know it, the
joke is lost on you, and if I have to explain it, the joke is lost for me.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:15:36 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for all
> >my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and connection
> >sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
> >liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching users
> >(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often and
> >only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on Linux.
> >But....
> >Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
> >MANDRAKE ASS!!
> >Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this - Applications
> >even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that user.
> >That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still kicks ass,
> >and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to the
> >hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux. Ohh I could go on and endlessly
> >list how much better XP is than Mandrake. Once again the Linux community is
> >playing catch up to the industry leader. Competition at it's finest!
> >Thank You.
> >
> >
>
> Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and have
> a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
> browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
> bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
> out-of-the-box free software?
Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this, so
Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
> Can I use Windows XP to redirect it's output over an encrypted network
> port so that I can run applications on my home machine from my machine
> at work, complete with GUI features? And do all this with out-of-the-box
> free software?
Yes. Win2K had this too.
> Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the machines
> on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this with
> out-of-the-box free software?
Of course. Win2K had this too.
>
> Can I use Windows XP as a software development platform with the software
> that it comes with, without the need to purchase additional software for
> lots of money?
Of course.
> I can do all this and more with linux, for free.
Same with WinXP, but even more =)
> With Windows XP, I'll even need to buy additional software to create
> professional documents, presentations, spreadsheets, and databases.
> I can do all this with Linux with out-of-the-box software.
No you won't. "Professional" is a grey term. Basically, if you're
willing to subject yourself to Linux's horrible, and horribly buggy
and crashy GUI, you can sweat it out I guess. For people that want
to get things done in a reasonable amount of time, easily, and
without fighting the OS continually to do it, WinXP makes all the
sense.
If you like fighting with your OS, if you like working with
substandard (yet free) applications that have very little compatability
with existing popular software not to mention have stability issues,
then I guess Linux is for you. But hey, you're doing it all to
spite Bill Gates, which is the only reason anyone runs Linux anyhow,
so you've accomplished that goal.
>
> ....Oh...but I forgot.....now you can log in and log out of Windows XP
> and not kill your internet connection. Wow!
You could do that back in NT 3.51.
Does Linux have a half-way decent SMP implementation yet? Nope. Oh well,
come back in 5 years when it does.
-c
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:50 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 May 2001 16:54:04
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:43:22
>> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:9efs03$9ar$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Does XP allow you to setup a MS "Intellimouse" during installation?
>The
>> >> last windows installation I did (Win98SE) didn't know of their
>existance -
>> >> you needed an extra driver download or disk to set up an MS mouse !
>Linux
>> >> Mandrake, on the other hand, has supported it for many years.
>> >
>> >Um, Win98 supports the intellimouse. There are updated drivers which you
>> >can get from Microsoft.com, but last time I used Win98 it found my
>> >intellimouse just fine.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>
>Laugh? Why? Are you that embaressed at the truth.
You have embarrassed yourself that much, that is why; you deserve to be
laughed at. How does that make you feel, Jan?
>Intellimouse support was available on Windows before any other platform,
>period.
No, really! Gasp!
>And, Win98 finds an intellimouse without any difficulty.
Win98 "finds and intellimouse", you say? So if I were to install
Win98SE or ME on this computer and hook up an intellimouse I won't need
a driver CD? Are you SURE?
>Of course linux played catch up later...
Just like everybody else. There's not much else to do when there is
illegal monopolization going on but hope to hang on until the criminal
behavior is stopped and look like you are playing "catch up" to those
dimwits who haven't a clue how the real world works.
--
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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:52 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>But I don't really believe it. What I've seen
>says the software has been getting cheaper,
>not more expensive. I think you need to back
>up that claim, at least a litle.
"Software" has been getting cheaper, of course it has. Microsoft
monopoly crapware gets more expensive, both to obtain and to use. Not
necessarily in any easily identifiable price hike; they usually show
more dishonest intent than that, as criminals generally would.
--
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: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:52 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 05:08:45
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> "Enterprise Software from Microsoft. Never 'needy', 'plays well with
>> others', 'ever-youthful'...." Blah, blah blah. The "ever youthful is a
>> real kick in the head. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! "Never confused or
>> unsure." Another good one.
>
>They do mention "servers that haven't been touched in days" in one
>of them, as though that is a surprisingly long time for servers to run
>unattended.
Yea, that's a good one, too. They're all hilarious.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:54 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001 18:35:47
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I really could care less about experiments; I'm not even a *theoretical*
>> physicist, but even if I were, I would be one of those guys who couldn't
>> care less about experiments.
>
>That's obvious. If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend
>that the moon is made of of green cheese, that's up to you. The rest of
>us rely on experimental evidence.
Just how many experiments in physics have you performed, Gary? 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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:55 GMT
Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 10:15:40
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>The conclusion that GreyCloud claimed that the difference between light
>>speed at various frequencies in a vacuum *is* immense (12%) was a
>>fallacy. It was an inaccurate extraction of what he actually said.
>
>No Max, it wasn't. This is *exactly* what he claimed.
>
>For example, here's
>
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So people would be lead to believe about the exact timings of NASA.
>>.88c and c aren't that big of a difference between here and voyager.
>>And JPL wasn't all that accurate about getting things precisely timed
>>either... how many mars probes have we lost now to screw ups??
>
>Now, last I checked Voyager is in a pretty good vacuum. GreyCloud
>doesn't think that you can detect the hour+ differences between .88c and
>c on a round trip message to Voyager.
You're still overblowing the statement to *make* it false, not arriving
at any reasonable understanding of its validity before examining whether
it is falsifiable. Last I checked "pretty good" is rather vague, and
the claim that the difference wasn't much was not a claim that it was
nothing at all.
I am not arguing GreyCloud is correct; I'm arguing that failing to
understand what someone says does not provide any grounding for an
argument refuting what they said, logically. Compounding GreyCloud's
mistakes with your own is no way to prove your mental abilities.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:56 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 09:59:42
[...]
>For most practical purposes (i.e., to an accuracy of at least 10 significant
>digits over the useful range of frequencies), the speed of light through a
>vacuum is constant regardless of frequency. Beyond these limitations, it
>may or may not vary.
Actually, there are no experimental results to support this claim. It
is known in practice that any theoretical variation in vacuum is not
practically available. It may only *look* like the speed of light
through a vacuum is constant regardless of frequency. It'll look like
that consistently, but that doesn't prove anything but the way our eyes
work. You see what I'm saying.
[...]
>Defending the weak is a nobble cause,
I am defending the strong (free thinkers) from the weak
(intellectually); it is a habit, not a cause.
>but I'm afraid you're going to have to
>face facts one day - *you* may have reached the conclusion that it is never
>justifiable to call someone "wrong" instead of "mistaken", but you have a
>long way to go before you can convert everyone else.
It is not dogma; no conversion is necessary. I have explained it; of
those who read my explanation, there will be smart people who understand
what I said and agree with it, and weak thinkers like yourself who don't
seem to get the point.
>So don't get too
>worked up about it.
You seem to be getting rather worked up about it. Again, leading me to
believe you are in the second group, but I'll admit that may just be
bigotry. I'm afraid you're going to have to face the facts, right now:
you are required to consider what I've said and decide if I am correct
or mistaken. Hedging your bet and blaming other people's wrong use of
language for your own is just quibbling, not facing facts.
>Add a filter to your newsreader to change "wrong" to
>"mistaken" if it makes you feel better - in 99% of cases, this will match
>what the poster means just as accurately.
Supposedly, but that is rather hard to swallow, considering the
circumstances and the explanation I have provided. As with your own
defensiveness, certainly understandable when being corrected by some
nut-ball in public, it seems true to any interested observer that the
only real reason to use "wrong" when "mistaken" is more accurate is
because most people are such weak thinkers, intellectually, (due to lack
of good training, I think) they feel compelled to resort to the implied
ad hominem attack at the first opportunity.
I am here to teach them better; filtering out their errors would be
rather counter-productive.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:57 GMT
Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 10:34:22
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>Well, let's see. In the post I'm replying to, GreyCloud claims all
>>>measurements of c have been done in air.
>>>
>>>Statement truth: dead wrong.
>>
>>You wish. It might even be so. But you've provided no more proof than
>>he has.
>
>Max, *read* what GreyCloud wrote please. This is what he claimed, and
>he's wrong. Evidence? How about every deep space probe ever built?
Read every word I've written, then get back to me. You are too far
behind the 'smart' curve for me to bring you up to speed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Steve Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 18:21:19 +0100
[BeoWulf] wrote:
> First of all, I'd like to say that I am running the Linux-Mandrake 7.2
> distro, and that I have been using this particular version ever since
> thesecond week it was on the mirrors. I did run the MandrakeUpdate
> facilityonce or twice, and I may have added some extra functionality in
> the form downloaded software packages...
>
> And yes, I've had a few X-freezes. And yes, I've had the corrupted rpm
> database. But to call it a disaster? Not a chance... This is by far
> onof the best distros I've ever seen or used...
>
> Second : people should really stop comparing Microsoft Windows to
> GNU/Linux. Microsoft claims Windows (95/98/Me) to be an operating
> systemwhile it is in fact a 32-bit extension to an archaic MS-DOS system,
> whichin turn was designed for the processors of the XT-category of
> computers ais not even a Microsoft invention. [1]
>
> WindowsNT and its successor Windows2000 are genuine 32-bit operating
> systems and could have been a lot better than they are if only they
> didn'suffer from the same unnecessary commercialistic design influences
> that lie at the very foundation of Windows95/98/Me. [2]
>
> Nevertheless, both branches of the Microsoft Windows family are intended
> commercial products. Thus, intended to be *sold*. "If the need does
> notexist, create it..." They were never intended to 'simply do the job'.
>
> GNU/Linux is based upon the UNIX architecture. It is *not* a commercial
> product, but a genuine operating system, designed to to the things an OS
> supposed to be doing and capable of doing, and this on computers in
> everyrange of appliance : from mainframes over to wrist watches (the IBM
> Linuxwatch!). It is, as the previous poster (Steve Campbell) said, a
> system engineered by people who really love what they are doing and who
> are motivated/dedicated to work on the improvement and/or development of
> theisystem when they feel up to it, not by overworked and underpaid
> nine-to-fivers who can not even be reached in person concerning the bugs
> they've written together as a feature on some blue monday in order to be
> able to afford another new suite for the next company party that they
> *have* to show their face at in order to keep their jobs etc etc... ;-)
>
> Also, people seem to be blaming GNU/Linux for the (currently) bad or
> inexistent support for some exotic hardware feature of which they *know*
> was designed and/or purchased for Microsoft Windows, while they never
> complain about the fact that Microsoft Windows (98 or Millenium Edition
> fmost of those people) *does* *not* *even* *support* their Pentium III/4
> processor and their huge amounts of RAM, as its 'kernel' is a *real*
> *modoperating system named MS-DOS, that isn't even aware of the existence
> of such a thing as a *protected* *mode* (the native operation mode of
> every Intel x86-compatible CPU since the 286) and that lets applications
> literally take over all CPU registers and memory addresses at will
> withouany intervention or awareness of the operating system.
>
> And what about the fact that noone has even complained over the fact
> thatall Intel-compatibles *have* to boot in this real mode (which doesn't
> really belong on such powerful CPUs anymore) simply because of the
> compatibility with this MS-DOS kernel in Windows95/98/Me, since DOS is
> noaware of what protected mode is and would therefore not be capable of
> switching the processor into real mode?
>
> And now I'm not even going to elaborate on the fact that all
> Pentium-compatibles have an internal SMP-like structure, that
> Windows95/9can't even use, or the poor multitasking/multithreading and the
> absence omulti-user functionality, or the security setup of the operating
> systems this day and age of connectivity and ICT-related crimes...
>
> Now what would you rather have? An exotic feature not yet fully
> supporteby a genuine, reliable, powerful and complete UNIX-system, or a
> claim-to-OS that does not even fully support your CPU, the very heart of
> your computer...?
>
> True... GNU/Linux (or FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD or Solaris or whatever
> UNIX-like system) is not for everyone. But *please* do *not* flame
> something as valuable as GNU/Linux [3] because you don't understand it
> orfind yourself incapacitated to use! If you want to learn, then learn!
> Iyou don't, then stay away from it. It's that simpel...
>
>
>
> [1] The original name was QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), a
> follow-up to CP/M, created at Digital by someone in his spare time. It
> never made it to a production version, and was bought from its developer
> Bill Gates.
>
> [2] The inspiration for the NT-kernel came from the analysis of the UNIX
> Mach kernel. Again, not very original...
>
> [3] The operating system as a whole is called GNU/Linux to be
> [politicallycorrect. *Linux* refers to the system's kernel as designed by
> [Linus B.
> Torvalds, GNU stands for the 'GNU is Not Unix'-project, founded by
> RicharStallman. Linux is not really part of the GNU project, but rather
> 'a
> partner'. GNU also comes with its (yet not fully stable) own kernel,
> nam'The Hurd'. A distribution of the GNU/Hurd operating system is
> availablethrough Debian.
> just a quick note ...qdos was a reverse engineered version of cpm
if somone reverse engineered windows , Gates would have their family burned.
he IS a theif, his empire is based on theft and he MUST be stopped (/rant)
ask apple about the time they gave their early OS to MS to tidy it it up.
It came back slower, buggier ( albeit pretier) and bearing a MS copyright
notice. As i heard the story , certain apple execs and geeks had to be
restrained:)
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 18:02:03 GMT
Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 25 May 2001 17:23:20 +0200 presented us with the
wisdom:
>
> "Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 25 May 2001 02:50:39 GMT
> presented us with the wisdom:
> > >
> > > Linux will ALWAYS be behind in drivers because the manufacturers write
> > > for the OS that makes money for them first and then, and that is still
> > > a maybe, they MIGHT get around to writing a Linux version.
> > >
> > Oh, I'm so glad to read this!
> > Would you care to explain that to my Samsung ML-4600 laser printer,
> please!?
> > Because, it came with a manufacturer-written linux driver, which was
> written
> > for RedHat 6.x, but works perfectly with Mandrake 7.2 as well. On the
> other
> > hand, it has Windows 95,, 98 and NT drivers (built by the manufacturer),
> > but _NONE_ of them works with Windows 2000 Professional.
>
> Um, read this:
> http://www.pcquest.com/content/weeksreview/101230101.asp
> "The driver CD has drivers for Windows 9x/NT/2000 and Linux"
>
This article is for time-travellers, as it starts with:
"Friday, January 11, 2002"
I believe, that by that time they _WILL_ have a Windows 2000 driver,
but there was no such thing on the CD packed into the box I can assure you.
> Here is a link to the Samsung printers drivers page:
> http://www.samsungsupport.com/prt_drv.htm
>
> And here is the link for the Win2000 driver for the printer:
> http://www.samsungsupport.com/ftp/ML4600ENG_pcl.exe
>
Thank you very much for this search. I might give it a try if I have to
put up Win2K on a computer again...
>
> Gee, you would think that a Linux user would hear about Google.
>
<sarcasm>
No, I never heard about it !
What is it ? Is it that special spinning ball hit in cricket ?
</sarcasm>
I did a search in last October and tried all I could find at that time...
Samsung web site was claiming, that the NT driver should work, but
it did not... I wonder if the currently downloadable version does...
(I see they link the same file for Win98/NT/2K, so I have my doubts)
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: JS \ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:58:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 24 May 2001 00:50:26
>>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
>>Mine's a Actiontec PCI w/call waiting. I don't know what it's deal is but
>>I need to type in setserial......
>>It also has a habit of ringing like someone is calling (but no one EVER
>>calls that line), at random every few hours or so. I have no idea why.
>
> Mine does exactly the same thing (under Windows; I don't recall if it
> does it under Linux). And I've noticed that just about every newly
> purchased PC I've seen in the last few months has that same modem card
> (if it doesn't have a winmodem). Perhaps it is just a cheap piece of
> shit with some bugs in it?
>
> I didn't think anyone else had this ringing problem; maybe Actiontec has
> info on it?
Technically speaking I'd venture to guess that the problem probably has
something to do with Windows (or Linux) periodically seeing the Call
Waiting part of the modem and saying what the hell are you, the modem takes
that query as a call coming in and audibly rings, until the OS say's fuck
it and ends the query. (Technically speaking of course).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
