> > > Judging from our experiences and those I read about in this list
> every day, Linux is
> > > "very intolerant" of every single brand of computer made,
> including all the big
> > > names. Our problems have occurred on both big-name machines, e.g.,
> Compaq, and
> > > home-made, e.g., Yokohama Storm Door and Motherboard Works, Ltd.
> Just whose "kit" is
> > > acceptable to Lord Linux? And whose specs are relevant? Is Linux
> the tail which
> > > deigns to wag the cybernetic dog?
> >
> > I don't know what Compaq, or other Big-name brands you use, but I've
> got a
> > Compaq Deskpro 2000 that works like a champ with out of the box
> Linux
> > install. No problems, ever. Uptime shows 168 days and counting. So
> you
> > must have gotten a bad Compaq. I personally have had more problems
> getting
> > NT installed and correctly configured than I have Linux. I know, I
> > administered Linux boxes for a local ISP and I administer NT boxes
> for my
> > present employer.
>
[PT] I *do* know about having problems with Compaq.
In my case it was a DeskPro 6150 (Pentium Pro 150)
system with a built-in AMD SCSI chip. The only Linux
distribution that would install on the box was
Slackware 3.4 since it used a regular non-modular
kernel. The other distribs I tried (Redhat and Caldera)
would puke during the install process. It was a shame
since IHMHO Compaq did a great job designing the
computer. They just could have chosen a more widely
used SCSI chipset like NCR or Adaptec. Oh, by the
way, the Slackware would crash also when I would
transfer large files from CD-ROM to the hard drive. So
I'm currently using a revamped Pentuim 120 clone
for Redhat Linux.
Caveat emptor to those who buy complete systems
from popular vendors or not. Make *sure* of all the
components you are getting and that they are
*thoroghly* supported by Linux.
> Well, that was a bit sarcastic of me, granted.
>
> Thing is, if one's own experiences with something are bad, then
> there's little joy in
> hearing that others have had good luck with that something.
>
> We may be asking more of Linux than it's prepared to provide. In
> short, it may not be the
> appropriate choice for what we need done. Just for the record, for all
> the others who see
> red whenever MS and NT are mentioned, our proposed application does
> not allow the use of
> NT. Hasn't, right from the start. That's why we have been looking for
> an OS which does
> fit.
>
[PT] The applications you want to do will certainly
drive your choices of which computer and OS you
will buy. If, for example, you have a big Oracle
application the you need to run, then you might
choose another UNIX on a workstation. If you
want to do desktop publishing, then maybe a PC
with Win95 or a Mac with Mac OS 8 might be
a better choice. If you want to do most common
network services like samba, mail, DNS or web
pages, then Linux is a clear choice.
> As much as I loathe Gates & Co., I find it rather tiresome when some
> Linuxites
> automatically curse NT whenever it is mentioned. In terms of being
> useful to people who
> need to get things done, NT still has far more to offer.
>
[PT] No animosity here. Everything has a place
the the wide world of computing. Yes, even WIn95
and NT too. Use the right tool for the right job.
Most people like myself can't afford to be too
religious about OSs. I have to administer what
I'm given. Period.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
