Linux-Advocacy Digest #497, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 22:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown ("Gooba")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:45:24 GMT
In article <89palo$36p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I notice that the Linux advocacy group
> seems to have much more traffic
> than any of the Windows advocacy groups.
Not much really happening in Windows Land. Windows 2000 is a bit
more reliable, but then again there are 65,000 incompatibility
flags.
Of course, part of the reason that the Linux group stays so busy
is because Microsoft has 25 full-time paid staff members whose
primary purpose in life is to spread as much misinformation as
possible about Linux - especially in the Linux advocacy groups.
Some are very articulate, some are downright childish. Some are
even just plain rude.
Meanwhile, there are about 17,000 volunteer Linux supporters such as
myself that are willing to address these issues. Some of the issues
raised are legitimate, others are misunderstandings of the Linux
paradigm by those who only know the Microsoft Paradigm, and others
are simply bald-faced lies.
> Simple reason is that Windows,
> along with the Mac sell themselves and
> don't need a band of loonytunes
> around to wave the flag.
This is partially true. Microsoft pends nearly $4 billion/year
advertising on everything from their web site to the Superbowl.
Linux is a modest shoestring operation supported by volunteers,
with relatively modest capitalization and cash flow. Furthermore,
Linux is a competitive market where companies like Red Hat, Caldera,
Corel, SuSE, and TurboLinux share a market that is growing primarily
by word of mouth.
I just installed another Linux system for a coworker this morning.
She wanted to try Linux, her son had been telling her about it, and
I figured I could give her a "pain free" installation that she could
dual-boot along with her NT system.
I took about the same amount of time to install both NT and Linux
base installations, but to get a useful NT machine, I had to install
extra software and reboot the box over and over.
> Now that Linux has become somewhat of the
> darling of the computer press the chips are out on the table for
> prospective users and supporters to try and decide for themselves if
> Linux is worth the fuss.
The press is just barely starting to cover Linux itself. Users still
have to either install it themselves or have someone install it for
them. I still can't walk into a CompUSA and see a Thinkpad 600E
running Linux. I can BUY a Thinkpad 600E running my choice of Linux.
Ironically, it costs a few dollars MORE than the NT machine. Probably
to include extra support costs.
> My opinon is that Linux in and of itself
This phrase could mean a number of things. Do you mean with no
software? Do you mean with no commercial software? As I look
below, you at least realize that Linux has a GUI (you knock X11).
> fizzles and burns out on the
> launchpad before it even gets into orbit.
How long have you been using Linux? I always reccomend that anyone
who really want to form a legitimate opinion should spend at least
20 hours/week for at least 13 weeks using Linux. After all, Linux
and Windows are different paradigms, like driving a car after riding
a bicycle. One needs to get used to different things.
It will take a few hours to just FIND all of the hundreds of Linux
GUI applications. When you begin to explore the libraries of CPAN
and CGI applications, and the libraries of toolkits and then look for
some of the commercial applications, you start to realize how foolish
a 7 day evaluation that gripes because Linux isn't just like windows
really is.
I once offered a bounty of $20 to the first three people who actually
used Linux for at least 20 hours/week for 90 days and still preferred
Windows. I eventually wrote one check after two years. The offer
was on this newsgroup from July of 1997 to November of 1998.
Many of the most fanatical advocates on this group were once just
like you. They spend 10 hours installing Linux (usually a free
download off the net).
> Joe computer user weaned on
> Windows needs a hell of a lot more
> than a free operating system in
> order to even consider switching from Windows.
True. Usually, they need to spend a few weeks with it just to really
trust the fact that it doesn't crash. I've seen X11 lock-up a few
times, but even then the system is usually recoverable. I also don't
like Netscape's text entry (dejanews posting) on Linux - netscape
has a memory leak problem as of 4.6
> Why should he switch?
Control over the system! Choices! Adherance to standards!
Control over the system!
With Linux the user controls what gets installed, what gets
displayed, what the desktop looks like, what the applications
look like, and which applications will be running. They get
development tools, server capabilities, and application libraries
that they can combine. Really exploiting this control does take
a bit more self-directed training than watching the dancing paper-clip,
but you have the equivalent of any COM object that can be combined
into a useful system in a relatively short amount of time.
Choices!
Even the bundleware isn't enough to prevent you from going out and
picking up you favorite Office Suite. Linux offers 4 office suites,
several web browsers, and dozens of development languages.
Adherance to standards!
Linux was designed to run the same software originally written for
the UNIX operating system. Typically, a UNIX system is much more
expensive - typically a workstation starts at around $20,000 including
monitor, console, and SCSI drives. Most people can't even think of
owning a full-blown Solaris, Irix, or AIX workstation. But Linux
supports most of the same software on low-cost PC hardware.
Recently, Linux has started developing a line of software generated
by Linux users for Linux users. Many UNIX vendors are working very
hard to make sure that they are "Linux Compatible".
Linux also tries to provide a great deal of backward compatibility.
I have code I wrote in 1983 that runs with minimal changes on Linux
today. Linux standards are very public. Unlike Microsoft sponsored
standards like DVD-CSS, USB, and PCI PnP, which Microsoft tries rabidly
to protect, Linux standards are generally created by large communities
using standards published to the IETF and implemented in software
protected by some variation of the General Public License.
Linux uses industry standards like TCP/IP, RPC, CORBA, X11, and HTTP.
Microsoft would like you to use their proprietary standards like
NetBIOS, WINS, OLE, COM, DCOM, and ActiveX. But then again, there
is no guarantee that the next release (Windows 2000 for example)
might decide that those APIs are obsolete and demand wholesale
migration to COM+, MTS, Active Directory, Apartment Threading, and
Fibers. In fact, the next service pack could swap out half the DLLs,
change the Mutex locks, and knock your third party applications into
the trees.
Furthermore, Linux standards provide not just the APIs, but also the
protocols, file formats, and interconnect definitions. You know that
IIOP changes will be approved by a large standards body - that you will
probably have backward compatibility, and that you can upgrade your
third party software when YOU feel like it, or when THEY offer new
features, not when MICROSOFT decides to break everything.
> Graphics? Doubtful considering X-Windows blurry,
> distorted and hard on
> the eyes method of displying fonts.
Blurry? A bit is a bit is a bit. The X11 drivers can be tuned to
get sharper resolution - even sharper than windows. Perhaps you
just didn't know how to set it up properly. Take a look at xvidtune.
I find that Windows (and KDE for that matter) tend to waste a lot of
real-estate. On some applications, the menus and toolbars take up
as much as 30 percent of the usable space. Furthermore, it's really
painful to shrink the fonts to a managable size.
> Don't tell me about rendering for
> Titanic I know the entire story.
> Linux was like the GroundsKeepers at a
> ballgame. Necessary, but nobody comes to see them.
This is true. Linux did the rendering (computations for how the
graphics should be painted onto the camera's display screen), but
SGI actually provided the display screen itself. After all, the
Indio workstations were plotting in 4096 pixel wide formats, for
wide-screen film presentations.
The other important feature that Linux offered was support for NFS,
which was really nice since it supported UDP and reduced the number
of open TCP/IP connections required between the various systems.
> Free Web Access? Try again.
True. Most of us get very low-cost service (I pay $10/month) for
unlimited use provided by local or national ISPs. Others of us
connect directly to cable modems and function as our own ISPs.
With DSL or Cable, Linux provides my web server, my e-mail, my domain
name services, my firewall, my news server, and my user identity.
I even have my own chat services. What would I need an ISP for?
> Most of those free CD's that come in the
> mail don't work with Linux.
True. Of course, the Linux CDs are pretty cheap too. Who knows,
in a few more months, AOL may be offering Linux along with the ISP
functions.
> AOL has a huge user base and to the best of
> my knowledge does not work with Linux.
Most of the AOL services that are available via internet are available
to Linux. On the other hand, many serious users can get the same
features through independent vendors and ISPs through a simple
TCP/IP connection.
> Multimedia? Sure, you can run an
> obsolete version of RealPlayer if you wish.
Actually, the same version available on Windows. But the Linux
version doesn't crash the way RealPlayer does after a few Service
Packs.
> DVD? maybe in the future.
I can get the source from a court filing available through the
freedom of information act.
Actually, it's pretty easy to get DeCSS, and since the code was
generated by a norwegian, who didn't sign the nondisclosure and
didn't pay the $5000 fee, it would be hard to stop anyone from
going to his site. Also, DeCSS is published in many other countries
as well.
However, I can legally purchase a card and software combination that
is properly licensed and does provide Linux capability.
> Scanners and printers that ordinary folks can
> afford (non postscript or
> in the case of scanners non scsi),
Check out SANE with the PPI option. One of the SCSI drivers
is actually through the parallel port - compatible with most
scanners.
As for printers, Ghostscript converts postscript to output suitable
for most printers. There are a number of choices, including HP Deskjet
and Laserjet printers.
> that by the way work great under
> Windows, not to mention all the free
> software like Adobe for instance
> that comes with most of them.
True, Linux provide all the Free software in the distribution.
In many cases, the free Linux software was contributed by
some of the peripheral makers.
> Easy one stop GUI mail/news programs?
If you really want it we have Netscape. Of course, some mail
programs are much more powerful, much faster, and help you manage
your mail much more quickly. The same is true with news.
> Network kits that install right out
> of the box so the clueless can
> install them and have a simple
> home network up in minutes? Try again.
In much the same way that you have to pick "Windows 2000 compatible
peripherals", you have to pick "Linux compatible peripherals".
I have had pretty good luck getting most NE2000 compatible cards
to run with Linux, along with most 3Com cards. The commercial
distributions are getting better and better at identifying YOUR
card.
One of the issues with Linux is that some interrupts can be shared.
The system can tell you which interrupts are being used, but you
may still want to share.
> Hardware support for today's hardware not some 5 year old soundboard?
Corel is providing some pretty good sourd support. New sound drivers
are even being provided by the PC maker themselves.
> Mixed bag.
> Ease of use?
> Well Linux with a good gui like Gnome is certainly easy
> enough to used if it pre-loaded.
> The problem arises when the user wants to update.
> This lib, that lib all around the lib we go.
That's one of the reasons it's a good idea to stick with a commercial
distribution. The commercial distributors work very hard to make sure
that everything plays together.
Speaking of DLL hell, what can you tell me about the 5 copies of
MFCCRT.DLL and MFCCRT40.DLL running around on Windows 95? It seems
that some Y2K patch broke a bunch of apps and everyone wants to put
the old version at the head of the path. Speaking of dll hell...
> It's like a fsking library
> merry-go-round only the names keep changing. Oh you didn't know that
> XYZ.lib is part of the ABC.lib package? Silly you for not reading, and
> reading,and reading and then reading some more. Then you find that
> ABC.lib has some requirements of it's own and back you go. All I want
> to do is instal a friggin program, and don't give me that RPM crap
> because 7 times out of 10 (and yes I did count) I never seem to have
> what is needed. This is a pure waste of time.
Most linux distributions use installation packages. You can even
request that the prerequisites be loaded if they are not already
there.
> Anyway, that's my rant.
Yes it is.
> One only needs to try Linux to see how much
> it lacks for normal folks.
It looks like about all you did was give it a try. Like taking
a Jaguar out for a test drive and complaining about that hideous
clutch and stickshift :-).
> Keep it in the geek realm where it can fester
> and provide joy and enlightenment.
You are correct. Linux isn't for everyone. It's for people who
dont want to pay $6000 for Win2K server enterprise edition, Microsoft
Developer Studio, and Office 2000 to get a computer that will do
what THEY want it to do.
It ISN'T for people who are completely comfortable with doing what
Microsoft wants them to do, the way Microsoft wants them to do it,
at the price Microsoft wants them to pay for it.
> Linux is as doomed as the Titanic when
> it comes to normal folks.
What are the "normal folks"? The 10 million NT workstation users?
The 200 million english-speaking, upper-middle-class Americans who
live in neighborhoods where the schools routinely upgrade to the
latest version of windows NT without blinking an eye?
There are 6 billion people in the world. There are 300 million people
in the united states. There are 100 million who are still running
windows 3.1, and another 100 million who are still running Windows 95.
They either don't want to pay Microsoft's prices (which usually
includes replacement of the PC) or they want more than what
they are getting right now.
Lets assume that there are 200 million people who will stick with
Microsoft no matter what Linux does. Let Linux have the other 5.8
billion.
> Leave it in some geeks server farm where it
> belongs, and rightfully so.
Well, perhaps it does belong on the farm - where there aren't a bunch
of MCSEs willing to drive to the house to fix the PC (Linux can often
be managed and configured remotely). Or in the Ghetto - where there
aren't a bunch of people willing to pay $200/hour for MCSE consultants
and $6000 to learn how to spell Microsoft. Or in the Bario, where
the primary language is spanish and the users want to communicate
with the other 1 billion spanish-speaking people of Latin America.
Or in the Chinatowns, where asians use special character sets to
communicate with the other 2 billion chinese, korean, and japanese
speaking people. Or perhaps in India and Australia, where there
are millions of people who could definately benefit from the resource
coordination provided by computers, but might be a bit far from
the guys in Redmond. Or perhaps in Europe, where a unified currency
and 12 languages make electronic commerce a bit ticklish to say the
least.
Or perhaps even is Tibet, Mongolia, Russia, eastern Europe, where
high mountains, trecharous roads, and corrupt officials make the path
of an MCSE a bit daunting. Linux is right at home there.
> PROCULOUS
>
> --
> I love my kernel. I really do. I hate my girlfriend.I love only Linux.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2000 21:06:54 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) writes:
> Why don't you buy a couple of gay porno magazines and have
> a nice time with yourself. You know you want to. It's
> natural, and fantasies are completely safe.
Or maybe visit http://www.videoinflux.com/. This web site is running
Linux. Also, http://ibroadcast.net/ is running FreeBSD. =) I've
checked out videoinflux, and man, do those women ever look skanky.
Why the hell do they always pick the videos with the skankiest looking
women? It's pretty sad. I've seen pornos with good looking women,
and yet these sites seem to pick the ones with the ugliest-looking
women. Of course, maybe Steve likes the ugly ones. :)
> You need to start merging all your different personalities
> together, and the first step is to admit that they exist,
> and let them get to know each other.
I think maybe electro-shock therapy would be good for Steve... When
the shock is applied, the personalities vacate the body and confront
each other.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:13:29 GMT
Before I get pegged for being with one "wrong" group or another, I'd
like to say up front this is not where I was headed with this. I'm a Windows
user, it's great for my games, I'm a Linux user, I just like it pretty much
all around.
We are all well aware that netscape's current incarnation pretty much
bites. KDE and Gnome are both front-ends to make things easier, which is not
necessarily a bad thing. Those who want to do their stuff at the CLI are
welcome to do so. Equally so those who like a GUI. Gnome crashes, but it's
pretty cool when it doesn't.
As far as GUI's Linux is playing catch-up to Windows. Windows however
should not even have to compete in terms of stability since it *should* be
completely stable on any supported hardware. When they claim total support
for who knows how many devices, that should mean they have total support for
those devices. Windows 95/98 is unstable. For a home user, a reboot once or
twice a day is not an issue. I haven't used NT and don't intend to, it has a
pretty steep license fee which leaves me unable to even try it. Yes, I
understand that Windows 95/98 OEM fees are included in the cost of the
computer, but the difference between something I have for zero cost beyond
what I've already spent and something which may or may not be marginally
better for my usage for the price they're asking makes it a no brainer.
As for performance, if you want to argue that the average home user
won't see a difference, then why do you argue that there is a difference? If
they will see the difference, then why argue about the difference? If it's
there, that's just fact. If it's not, that also is just a fact. Neither way
is it arguable. The only argument left is what the developers are doing to
bring the lower score up.
Again, I urge that those who really would like Linux to succeed,
concentrate on success. MS's failings or successes are all fine and dandy as
far as we're concerned as long as Linux does what we need it to and Windows
doesn't, there isn't "that kind" of competition. The system, any system,
that does what you need it to do for a price you're willing to pay is the
hands-down winner. No need to btich about what the other guy is or isn't
doing, chances are he's doing it for his own reasons and your judgement
(never spell this one right...but I know there are those who will notice so
I'll just point it out now and get that all over with) doesn't matter either
way.
Bottom line. I'm not a Linux hater, nor a zealot. I don't think Windows
is all it should be after this long a development period, and I do believe
I'm paying too much for a system which doesn't give me all the freedom I'd
like to have. I don't know anyone who hasn't griped about the cost of
Windows at one time or another, even the most devoted aren't always pleased.
Don't flame me because someone took my post out of context and wants it to
be Pro-Windows. If anything, I'm Pro-Choice.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:23:55 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Chad Myers wrote:
> I believe it's with the new memory extensions that Intel
> provided. I believe that memory is now addressed with 36-bits.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's something like that, can someone provide
> a more definitive statement on it?
>
> NTFS, however has been able to address 2 exabytes since NT4.0,
> I'm not sure how they do that, though.
>
> I remember a Linvocate not believing me, saying it couldn't
> be done on 32-bit (since ext2 is limited to 2GB files), but
> files in NTFS can be as large as 2 Terrabytes (I believe, I'll
> have to review, that's just off the top of my head).
>
> -Chad
That sounds about right. You can have up to 64GB of real memory, but
virtual memory per process is still 32-bit addressing. The 2.3 Linux
kernel now supports 64GB real memory. The 2.3 kernel also removes the 2GB
limit on files. Linux on 32-bit machines prior to 2.3 were limited to 2GB
files since it memory mapped files, so it was limited to the size of the
address space.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:27:34 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:13:29 GMT, "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before I get pegged for being with one "wrong" group or another, I'd
>like to say up front this is not where I was headed with this. I'm a Windows
>user, it's great for my games, I'm a Linux user, I just like it pretty much
>all around.
You would really be happier with a Sony Playstation II
> We are all well aware that netscape's current incarnation pretty much
>bites. KDE and Gnome are both front-ends to make things easier, which is not
>necessarily a bad thing. Those who want to do their stuff at the CLI are
>welcome to do so. Equally so those who like a GUI. Gnome crashes, but it's
>pretty cool when it doesn't.
But it does, and quite frequently at that. Why is it that the Linux users
put up with second rate software?
> As far as GUI's Linux is playing catch-up to Windows. Windows however
>should not even have to compete in terms of stability since it *should* be
>completely stable on any supported hardware.
And it is. The Windows list of USEFUL hardware, not some 1984 printer,
although there are some of them also.
When they claim total support
>for who knows how many devices, that should mean they have total support for
>those devices. Windows 95/98 is unstable. For a home user, a reboot once or
>twice a day is not an issue.
I boot once a day, only because I turn off my system at night. Never have a
problem.
I haven't used NT and don't intend to, it has a
>pretty steep license fee which leaves me unable to even try it.
Same here as well as somewhat shakey hardware support for what I need.
Yes, I
>understand that Windows 95/98 OEM fees are included in the cost of the
>computer, but the difference between something I have for zero cost beyond
>what I've already spent and something which may or may not be marginally
>better for my usage for the price they're asking makes it a no brainer.
This is the key reason why people will not switch to Linux. There really is
no reason to do so other than to screw Gates.
> As for performance, if you want to argue that the average home user
>won't see a difference, then why do you argue that there is a difference? If
>they will see the difference, then why argue about the difference?
GUI under Linux is perceptibly slower. Find under Linux is a joke. Ok so I
can use Locate, but I can also use fast find under Windows Office which
uses the same technique or building a database.
If it's
>there, that's just fact. If it's not, that also is just a fact. Neither way
>is it arguable. The only argument left is what the developers are doing to
>bring the lower score up.
They always seem to be doing something under Linux, problem is the
something arrives long after it is already obsolete in the Windows world.
Not really a bad thing if you like running less than current hardware, or
don't expect state of the art performance in the way of features that you
paid for BTW.
> Again, I urge that those who really would like Linux to succeed,
>concentrate on success. MS's failings or successes are all fine and dandy as
>far as we're concerned as long as Linux does what we need it to and Windows
>doesn't, there isn't "that kind" of competition. The system, any system,
>that does what you need it to do for a price you're willing to pay is the
>hands-down winner. No need to btich about what the other guy is or isn't
>doing, chances are he's doing it for his own reasons and your judgement
>(never spell this one right...but I know there are those who will notice so
>I'll just point it out now and get that all over with) doesn't matter either
>way.
I would love to see Linux succeed, but it is headed down the path of
extinction unless it wakes up and realizes that the world does not revolve
around a group of holier than though geeks.
> Bottom line. I'm not a Linux hater, nor a zealot. I don't think Windows
>is all it should be after this long a development period, and I do believe
>I'm paying too much for a system which doesn't give me all the freedom I'd
>like to have. I don't know anyone who hasn't griped about the cost of
>Windows at one time or another, even the most devoted aren't always pleased.
>Don't flame me because someone took my post out of context and wants it to
>be Pro-Windows. If anything, I'm Pro-Choice.
Me too and for what I run, Linux isn't even in the same ballpark let alone
the same game.
Linux has become somewhat of a joke in my field.
Joke goes like this:
Running Linux yet?
Nope. But I'm still trying.
Why?
It's free.
What's your time worth?
What's time. Time is free.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:35:47 GMT
"Arthur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > How does any OS survive this? I can't think it would be too happy to
> > find its swapped bits are all now zeros.
>
> > I'm serious here- I don't understand. Enlighten me.
>
> If you really want an OS to do this, it's not that
> hard. You simply have to detect format requests
> (independent of the driver), validate them (pass
> a magic number, respond to a request for validation,
> only allow trusted code to do a format), and
> recover gracefully if the request is an error.
> You may find it easier to implement some of this
> in hardware (eg memory protection on X86's).
Talk about bloat ware. Now the OS not only has to be an OS, but
has to constantly watch the drivers to make sure that they're
not doing bad driver things.
That's ca-ca. Drivers should be well written. It would
be better if they're verified.
MS has a very good testing lab that certifies drivers, hardware,
software, etc for the "Windows Logo Program".
In Windows2000, it even goes a step further. Drivers can be
signed by Microsoft as "certified" for Windows2000. Non certified
drivers can easily be installed, but it warns you "This driver
has not been certified and may cause instability in the system. blah
blah blah".
My guess is Symantec *.* would never make it on that list.
> Implementing this will probably add cost, increase
> development time, impact ease of use and reduce
> performance -- there are tradeoffs between fault
> tolerance and everything else. Your answer depends
> on what you need (or how valuable the data on the
> disk is vs. the probability of the fault occuring
> in this case).
The more realistic approach is knowing about the hardware,
software and their corresponding drivers to make sure that
everything works. Test, test again, and make sure you don't
forget to test it afterwards. Stick with reliable vendors
like Compaq, HP, and even IBM in most cases. Avoid worthless
vendors like Adaptec, ATI, Diamond (for server-type stuff).
> Note that you have to design this capability into
> the OS - no amount of testing will prevent an
> incompetent programmer from writing a driver
> with the fault you describe.
Exactly. This is why Symantec should be banned from writing
software.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
