Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Jim Richardson)
Re: RPM Hell (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000 (Jim Richardson)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Jim Richardson)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Good read from ZDnet ("Adam Warner")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("ono")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Sleepy")
Re: Nitpicking terminology: OSS vs FS Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Mig)
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (mlw)
Re: The real truth about NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:43:20 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:29:02 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>Who said that? Not me.
>
>It's funny, you guys say, "Open source is superior"
>I say, "No it's not, look at X"
>You say, "Oh, so closed source is perfect, right!?"
>
>Um... no, I'm saying Open source isn't superior, nor perfect, nor
>anything the OSS advocates claim it to be. It's no better, only
>worse than closed source.
>
Has it been pointed out to you that it took 6 months as open source, to
discover a backdoor that had existed in a previously closed source program for
years? how was closed source better in this case? If it was still closed
source, the backdoor would still be there, and we would not know about it.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:50:09 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:16:58 GMT,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Jan 2001 02:32:07
> [...]
>>> I suppose packaging has it's advantages. I suppose it come a matter of
>>>personal taste really; I like to be in control, hence my DIY methods.
>>
>>I don't know why you think that src.rpm doesn't permit you to "DIY" or
>>"be in control". [...]
>
>What is this src.rpm you keep mentioning?
>
it's an rpm package of the source for a given program. You can easily compile
one by rpm --rebuild blahblah.src.rpm, or with a clicky pointy thing if that's
your bag.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:11:11 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:18:36 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
>interchangeable.
>>
>> What about Word98?
>
>Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different formats.
>
You mean to say if my friend emails me a word98 document, I can't read it with
word2000 or word97?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:12:39 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:36:02 -0500,
Gary Hallock, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>
>> No, but the kernel itself has to be. A Linux install kernel has to be able
>> to run on a 386. MS's install kernel is both multiprocessor and 486
>> optimized (for NT4, P5 optimized for 2000).
>
>Not true. Redhat comes with multiple kernel rpms (386, 586, 686) and
>installs the one optimized for your machine. Mandrake ships with a kernel
>optimized for 586. Both have separate rpms for smp which are automatically
>installed if you have an smp.
>
>Gary
>
the truly amusing thing, is that linux is available for so many CPUs, that
claiming the kernel must "be able to run on a 386" is sort of like cherry
chocolate, too rich...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:20:02 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:26:18 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:11:02 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows on a new
>> >> computer without having to go thru 3 reboots.
>>
>> >You'll never be able to install Linux (or any other OS) without at least
>2
>> >reboots. Reboot 1 to boot from floppy or CD to start the installation
>> >process,
>>
>> Not if you boot as soon as you switch it on.
>
>That's still a boot.
>
>> >and reboot 2 to load the newly installed kernel with new
>> >configuration.
>>
>> And again whenever you install some drivers?
>
>Are you talking about Windows? Windows 2000 doesn't usually require reboots
>for installed drivers. Sometimes, but not usually. Linux also requires
>reboots for some drivers, since they're compiled into the kernel.
Then you are installing a new kernel, not new drivers, linux doesn't need a
reboot for drivers.
Does windows 2000 need to reboot to use a parallel printer if youhave allready
used the parallel webcam that session?
<snip>
that's the windows with the vast majority of installations, compared to the 9x
series, NT and 2000 are small potatoes.
>> >> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows via the
>> >> internet.
>>
>> >You can already.
>>
>> How?
>
>DOS boot disk with network stack. Download files, run setup.
>Alternatively, install LAN-Manager redirector and run setup off the server.
how does it deal with licencing?
>
>> >> You will never find a version of Microsoft Windows which can
>> >> achieve an uptime of over a week.
>>
>> >Now this is a flat out lie. Hell, Windows 98 can stay up for weeks at a
>> >time.
>>
>> As long as you maintain it to fuck and don't run any programs.
>
>Not even. My 98 machines stay up regularly without reboots for weeks. I
>never turn them off.
Well, the win-95 at one of my clients, gets reboot nightly, or else it gets
"hinky" and starts to flake out. My mom's win95 setup needs reboots about every
2 days min.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good read from ZDnet
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:13:03 +1200
Hi "sfcybear",
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2673376,00.html
Yes that was an extemely well-informed article to come out of ZDNet!
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:28:37 -0600
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Y7486.4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:_YK76.1170$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
> > > unpredictable and frequent intervals;
> >
> > That's bullshit. Most people don't have frequent bluescreens under
Win9x.
> > Unpredictable, perhaps, but then how predictable is a kernel panic?
>
> No, *that's* bullshit. I had a freaking BSoD this morning when I booted
this
> box up. It hadn't even finished booting (take two was more sucessful).
BTW,
> I find Windows crashes/freezes/BSoDs very regular: every 4 hours. I'm glad
> I've got LM7.2 working on the other partition, it won't take me much to
> switch over full time (damn games...).
And you're "most people"? My girlfriend's 98SE machine crashes about once a
month, and it's on 24x7.
> > The reason (and it is quite defensible) is that it is the easiest and
> > cheapest solution. 30 minutes and your system is back and running,
while
> > you might otherwise spend hours figuring out the problem otherwise.
>
> 30 minutes for a Windows reinstall? Hmmm, 2h for Win98SE, another 1.5h for
> IE5.5, half an hour for FS98, .75h for drivers, plus another 4 for 5 hours
> for actual applications (C++Builder, Delphi, JBuilder, StarOffice, Word
> Viewer, Acrobat, graphics software for my scanner, etc), plus another hour
> to get my usual complement of GNU software (DJGPP, Bash, fileutils,
> shellutils, Emacs). That's about 10 hours.
Reinstalling does not remove your existing applications. They're still
there and they still work. IE would need to be reinstalled, but just run
the damn setup out of the download directory.
> > > Linux and Windows both have problems, but the problems of Linux are
> > > solvable and in fact are being solved rapidly, whereas neither appears
> > > to be true of Windows.
> >
> > 7 years is rapidly?
>
> WTF?
the Linux community have been trying to solve these problems for 7 years.
> > > Many desktop-oriented Linux apps may seem immature compared to their
> > > Windows counterparts, but, compared to those same apps at a similar
> > > point in time after their release, they look an awful lot better to
> > > me, and they're improving far more rapidly as well.
> >
> > I don't really see that. How long was KDE2 in development? 2+ years?
> The
> > problem with open source is that everyone wants to be implementing the
> > latest whiz bang feature, but doesn't want to do maintenance unless it's
> > serious problem. That leaves thousands of tiny issues that nobody finds
> > "sexy" enough to fix, but all give a bad user experience.
>
> That's not true. The big things get fixed quicxkly because they are more
> important. That said, most problems get sorted soon enough, because almost
> every problem is interesting/easy to someone.
Then why has it taken 7 years to get a decent package management system
(apt-get)?
> > There goes the "Linux isn't competition for Windows" theory.
>
> Windows will be dead before we know it.
So I guess there's no reason for court action then.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:25:24 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:o0V76.1247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a
file,
> read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the FPU..
see
> if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the data
for
> your native file format? That makes no sense.
It makes sense to everyone who expects to use more than one computer
in their lifetime, especially if they are unwilling to let a software
company
take away their choices for their next one.
> The only way the formats can be identical on both platforms is if one
> platform stores their data in the other platforms format.
Or if both (and others) followed a standard, a concept that is alien
to Microsoft.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:16:56 +0100
And what's the difference between 'not statically' linked libraries and
dll's?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ono wrote:
> >
> > > You moron....
> > > Linux doesn't have any "DLL Hell", ignorant twit.
> > > Linux libraries are properly versioned, and successive versions of the
> > > same library can be kept on the same system without conflict.
> > And thats why linux suffers from bloat! Because every program comes with
> > it's own statically linked version of the same shit. MS at least tried
to do
> > something.
>
> Dumbshit. Statically linked libraries were abandoned years ago.
>
>
> > But you're right, dll versioning (even with) COM fails sometimes (but
NEVER
> > when you run MS only software).
> > ok! it's not never...... it's nearly never.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:33:34 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Are you talking about Windows? Windows 2000 doesn't usually require
reboots
> >for installed drivers. Sometimes, but not usually. Linux also requires
> >reboots for some drivers, since they're compiled into the kernel.
>
> Then you are installing a new kernel, not new drivers, linux doesn't need
a
> reboot for drivers.
Some drivers are part of the kernel, such as some file systems.
> Does windows 2000 need to reboot to use a parallel printer if youhave
allready
> used the parallel webcam that session?
No. You might reboot because you find it easier than disabling the driver.
But if the driver is written to grab hold of the port and doesn't give it
up, that has nothing to do with Win2k. Just stop the device. Big deal.
> >> >> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows via the
> >> >> internet.
> >>
> >> >You can already.
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> >DOS boot disk with network stack. Download files, run setup.
> >Alternatively, install LAN-Manager redirector and run setup off the
server.
>
> how does it deal with licencing?
Licensing is a paper issue, not a software one. If you have a legitimate
license, you can install it from any source, including over the internet.
> >> >> You will never find a version of Microsoft Windows which can
> >> >> achieve an uptime of over a week.
> >>
> >> >Now this is a flat out lie. Hell, Windows 98 can stay up for weeks at
a
> >> >time.
> >>
> >> As long as you maintain it to fuck and don't run any programs.
> >
> >Not even. My 98 machines stay up regularly without reboots for weeks. I
> >never turn them off.
>
> Well, the win-95 at one of my clients, gets reboot nightly, or else it
gets
> "hinky" and starts to flake out. My mom's win95 setup needs reboots about
every
> 2 days min.
95 is 5 years old. 9x has come a long way since then.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:34:00 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:18:36 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
> >> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
> >interchangeable.
> >>
> >> What about Word98?
> >
> >Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
formats.
>
> You mean to say if my friend emails me a word98 document, I can't read it
with
> word2000 or word97?
If you have the converter installed, you can.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Sleepy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Sleepy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:32:23 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:938n15$ptq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
> > > > > > and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
> > > > > > will see if I can locate an online reference.
> > > > >
> > > > > You made the claim. Back it up.
> > > >
> > > > my aren't we paranoid.
> > >
> > > You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and
> then
> > > refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
> >
> > OK, I'll back him up. I saw that article too.
> >
> > In fact...look here:
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2387282,00.html
> >
> > Conventional wisdom says Linux is incredibly stable.
> > Always skeptical, we decided to put that claim to the
> > test over a 10-month period. In our test, we ran Caldera
> > Systems OpenLinux, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT
> > Server 4.0 with Service Pack 3 on duplicate 100MHz
> > Pentium systems with 64MB of memory. Ever since we
> > first booted up our test systems in January, network
> > requests have been sent to each server in parallel for
> > standard Internet, file and print services. The results
> > were quite revealing. Our NT server crashed an average
> > of once every six weeks. Each failure took roughly 30
> > minutes to fix. That's not so bad, until you consider that
> > neither Linux server ever went down. This test, coupled
> > with our technical staff's extensive Linux and NT
> > experience, leads us to believe that Linux truly is more
> > stable than NT on uniprocessor servers.
>
>
> I wonder what the results would've been if they were using:
> A> NT SP >3 preferably 6a, but 4 would do as well. Sp4 was released on
> october 1998, this article dates to november 1999, why didn't they use the
> SP4?
> It was out for nearly 3 months before they start their test.
> B> How would the test fare on better systems.
>
I thought SP 6 for NT meant RedHat 6.2...
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nitpicking terminology: OSS vs FS Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:28:43 +0100
no name wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Nobody says Open Source (i would prefer the term Free Software) is
> > perfect. It is not. But some advantages are pointed out - like this
> > one about security.
>
> Note: Open Source is not the same as Free Software. Free Software
> is Open Source software that uses (specifically) the GPL or LGPL to
> aggressively enforce its freedom. Open Source software is the correct
> term for all software that is developed under a management model where
> source code is visible to the users of the product.
No.. the softwarare must be modifiable and redistributable by users to be
called "Open Source". But correct me if i am wrong.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:55:46 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Steve Wolfe wrote:
> >
> > > Can anyone recommend a good raid IDE controller for Linux. Preferably
> > > ATA 100. We have tried using the Promise controller with limited
> > > success. We probably want to run 2 controllers in the server (for more
> > > speed) with a total of 6 drives. 4 of the drives running raid 1+0 and
> > > the other 2 forming a separate mirror. The 2 in the mirror we also want
> > >
> > > to boot off of.
> >
> > If you really need that much speed that you're going to go with two IDE
> > RAID controllers, you really might want to look into a SCSI RAID setup.
> > Having used SCSI RAID, I can say that it just makes you go "ooooooh" with
> > delight. It's definitely worth the extra money.
>
> Not only that, but you can put all your disks on ONE SCSI channel
> and STILL get better performance than IDE.
>
> Especially under Linux.
This depends on many factors.
My personal favorite RAID controllers are SCSI to SCSI raid controllers.
They work on all platforms.
Infortrend, www.infortrend.com, makes a great box. Plug one end into a
standard SCSI or fibre channel card, plug a number of disks in the other
end (up to some silly number like 60).
The SCSI to SCSI boxes have a great number of advantages. When asked
professionally, I say to stay away from RAID controller boards, and go
with a SCSI to SCSI raid device. They work with any OS that supports any
SCSI card with main stream drivers (very important for stability!), and
offload any possible CPU cycles to an external box.
I have had too many problems with software RAID (like what happens when
the OS crashes?), I have also had too many problems with PCI solutions
in that the newest versions of OS lag in support.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:52:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:45:19 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> > Dlue for the clueless: Disk drive images are NOT an acceptable
>> > alternative to backup tapes.
>>
>> Ses you.
>>
>> There are other backup media than tapes. CD-R comes to mind.
>
>Let's see....CD-R
>
>Write once....and then it can't be used again.
>Capacity ... less than 1G.
>
>4mm DAT
>
>Write once....it's still good for several hundred RE-recordings
>Capacity... 2G - 25G
As a personal note -- take it as you will -- I have a 4020i, a DAT,
and a SyJet. The 4020i has been problematical and finicky, and
is currently on my P90 firewall (yuck) because my other box -- a
PP200 -- doesn't seem to have a space for the interrupt and/or DMA
(I forget which) for the card coming with it. In short, I almost
never use it anymore.
I also have an HP 4mm DAT drive. It was also problematical and
finicky; not sure why. (It might have been substandard media,
admittedly; its main problem was that it liked to go back and
forth and back and forth on the tape during restore. This
took a very long time...)
The Syquest SyJet, on the other hand, is a nifty little 1.5 GB
removable cartridge hard drive which, while under capacity, is
adequate for my needs (mostly because I reorganized my system in
a fairly intelligent fashion so that it could handle the backups).
I will probably have to revisit this issue at some point, mind you,
and replace it with the biggest Iomega Jaz drive (Zip drive?)
I can find, but for now, it's my backup solution. (I should
also note I'm a long term Syquest fan, and was sorry to see them
go into bankruptcy. Their website is still up, though, and they
are selling a limited supply of cartridges -- and they are a bit
on the pricey side: US $150 each. But I've never really had a
problem with the drive units; I keep replacing them because they
kept getting bigger! :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:04h:08m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:58:42 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oB486.57854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:o0V76.1247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a
> file,
> > read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the FPU..
> see
> > if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the data
> for
> > your native file format? That makes no sense.
>
> It makes sense to everyone who expects to use more than one computer
> in their lifetime, especially if they are unwilling to let a software
> company take away their choices for their next one.
>
> > The only way the formats can be identical on both platforms is if one
> > platform stores their data in the other platforms format.
>
> Or if both (and others) followed a standard, a concept that is alien
> to Microsoft.
Can't you just, for one minute, stop thinking about how the computer
industry works today and think about how it worked 10-15 years ago when
these formats were created? There was no interoperability then, it wasn't
an issue. This is just the result of legacy code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:01:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:01:56 +0000
<zXx76.30305$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>> Write once....and then it can't be used again.
>> Capacity ... less than 1G.
>>
>> 4mm DAT
>>
>> Write once....it's still good for several hundred RE-recordings
>> Capacity... 2G - 25G
>
>CD-R has two big advantages:
>
>(i) You can use it on any machine with a CDROM
>(ii) It has a random access file system
>
>Tapes generally aren't available across several machines, unless they've
>all got the same tape drive attached.
I actually did have /dev/rmt working at one point, on Linux.
It's kind of neat -- but I have since deactivated my 4mm DAT drive
(see my other post).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:05h:18m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:06:26 GMT
Agreed, Aaron admitted never using Windows 2000 (nor NT) and Matt should
not be allowed to touch such an expensive piece of equipment.
tony roth wrote:
>
> Matt,
> You win the stupidest usenet poster award. It was Aaron but you've just
> whipped the snot out of him!
>
> "Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> > enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
