Linux-Advocacy Digest #595, Volume #25 Sat, 11 Mar 00 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: RHCE (TARogue)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Robert Morelli)
Re: Good Linux Books - Cheap (was - I need Linux for Morons (Lloyd Ferguson)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Mark Hamstra)
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob Hauck)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (5X3)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (5X3)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(5X3)
Re: In the middle of it all... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:36:15 +0100
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> really true that we're resting on our laurels, why is it that so mouch
> effort over the last two years has gone into development tools ( KDE,
> GNOME, QT and GTK ) ?
it looks like there is some big progress, but this is because it starts from
a small base. going from zero to some tools and libraries might look like a
big progress, but still linux isn't even close to the support developers
have on windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TARogue)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: RHCE
Date: 11 Mar 2000 19:05:52 GMT
On 11 Mar 2000 16:28:08 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
scribbled something about Re: RHCE:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy S. Christopher Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Ed wrote:
>
>:> Has anyone encountered employers requesting RHCE certification? What is
>:> the general opinion about the value of the RHCE? Have you seen many
>:> jobs for linux sys admins?
>
>: I have not seen or heard of anyone requesting RHCE so far. I have
>: personally cheked out a few of the books though, just to be safe and was
>: dissapointed in them. Save your money for now and just keep learning on
>: your own.
>
>
>RHCE certification is fairly expensive, and from what I hear, pretty
>consistently booked months in advance. There has got to be a demand
>for it somewhere, although to be honest, I haven't seen much in my
>area (Cleveland, Ohio, which is a technological backwater).
>
FYI:
I bought the Red Hat Certified Engineer Linux Study Guide, by Syngress
Media, Inc., distributed by Osbourne/McGraw Hill. The first thing I
tried to do was take the practice exam to find my strengths and
weaknesses. Unfortunately, the test, though written in HTML, was written
to by used by Internet Explorer.
There was nothing on the outside of the book to indicate that
Windows/Explorer were needed. I don't have or want a Windows machine.
WHY a book/CD for Linux Certification would be written tobe run ONLY on
a windows platform confounded me. I wrote to both Syngress and McGraw
Hill and never got a reply. I am therefore passing the info here so that
others don't make the mistake I did and buy this book. Also I wanted
others to write to the authors/publishers to complain and (hopefully)
get it fixed.
--
TARogue (t o m (at) t a r o g u e . n e t)
plug #1 - http://www.tarogue.net/
plug #2 - http://www.tarogue.net/goth.html
plug #3 - http://www.tarogue.net/n.g.resource.html
Check 'em all out!
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:22:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:34:01 -0500,
> Stephen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My favorite, is that even if you tell RH to install KDE it will
install
> > Gnome.
>
> Not to defend RH, but you know that KDE and Gnome are related in
> the same way as X and a window manager? Gnome != WM. KDE == WM.
Do you know that what you said is totally wrong? ;-)
KDE is not a WM. KDE has a WM. KDE's Wm (kwm) has no support
whatsoever for GNOME (unlike E or Window Maker).
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:48:29 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
mlw wrote:
>
> Robert Morelli wrote:
> >
> > Davorin Mestric wrote:
> > >
> > > this will never happen, because the linux community already perceives
> > > that linux is the best development platform. this is off course far
> > > from the truth, but truth is not important. what is important is what
> > > people think, not what actually is. so, there would be no push to
> > > improve something which is already 'best'.
> > >
> >
> > Sadly, I must agree with this assessment, at least as regards old
> > timers.
> > I see two big contributing factors.
<snip>
> > 2. A distorted sense of what powerful software is. At the time UNIX
> > came into
> > being, in the 1970's, people had just understood compiler principles
> > and finite
> > state machines, etc., and that seemed hot. In retrospect, to most
> > people on
> > non-UNIX platforms, that stuff now seems simple minded compared to
> > things like
> > GUI design, which requires art, creativity, and also more advanced
> > software
> > concepts. But as ridiculous as it may seem, I think that to the
> > average UNIX
> > afficionado parsing still seems hot, and piping together programs with
> > many
> > command line switches seems fancy and powerful, and the expertise of
> > the kernel
> > hacker is exalted far above the level of the goofball who invents
> > something like
> > a toolbar, a hypertext help system, or an IDE. Unfortunately, a
> > contributing
> > factor was the fact that the modern GUI was first popularized on the
> > Mac, a
> > platform with brain dead multitasking and networking support. This
> > invited
> > people without insight to also dismiss the GUI as brain dead by
> > association.
>
> You know, this is a huge philosophical argument, that is largely wasted
> on end users, but important for software development. Under Windows the
> command:
>
> "something | sort > file.txt" is a very expensive procedure. Under UNIX,
> "something | sort > file.txt" is very efficient. UNIX was designed with
> the notion that multiple programs can and should as one. Windows (and
> DOS) were designed thinking that a program stands alone, while this was
> because DOS was a monotasking environment, the metaphor stuck.
>
> Under UNIX there is no real reason to put everything into one program,
> in fact, it is a bad idea. Does that mean that one does not have nice
> GUI applications? No. It means that, with the exception of WYSIWYG
> editing, applications that consist largely of dialog boxes and text
> entry fields, it makes sense to have a text program do the actual
> processing of the data, while some GUI toolkit acquires the data and
> issues the command to process. This is actually no different than using
> VB for dialogs with a .DLL under Windows, except that you can test the
> components on the command line. (Which, the end use may never do, but as
> a developer, I can test the hell out of it!)
>
> This sort of metaphor is hard to do well in Windows because the child
> process management tools are not in place. Just because one can't do it
> under Windows does not mean it is bad, and I reiterate, the reason one
> can't do it under Windows is because Windows is based on a programming
> model that is very very primitive. NT is a bit better, but if one writes
> an application for "Windows" it is very hard to justify targeting only
> NT.
>
> Under Windows the closest analogy is VisualC++. You have a nice WYSIWYG
> text editor, but have a text based program actually do the compiling.
> cl, nmake, etc. are command line utilities. This is, in fact, a very
> UNIX model of doing things. It should be noted, doing this sort of thing
> in Windows is difficult to do, under UNIX, one simply issues "popen" and
> reads a file.
You aren't really addressing the point I was trying to make. I don't dispute
the value of good command line support and piping etc. If it's a choice between
a pleasant looking GUI, and getting a job done, I prefer to get the job done.
In fact, I consider it mind boggling that no Microsoft OS was ever released
with integrated scripting support beyond the DOS batch language. (I think NT 4.0
has some kind of a scripting language, but still not seriously supported. Of course,
there have always been ports of perl, etc., but the system never included
the support to make them practical as scripting languages for applications ...)
By the same token, I don't praise Apple for weak networking support and
cooperative multitasking. Mac and Windows are brain dead systems in numerous ways,
and I don't use them for much.
My point is that a good OS should embrace not only the older basic technologies like
command line support, but also the more advanced technological innovations like the
modern GUI paradigm and the component object model. If you ask a typical UNIX bigot
why
you can't load a file into Emacs by dragging a file object onto the Emacs window,
he'll
smugly answer that UNIX people wouldn't use such a capability even if it were there.
These
people are actually proud of their insularity and lack of sophistication.
Mind you, I'm no Windows advocate. But I'll at least give Microsoft credit for one
thing.
In their own bumbling, incompetent way, they have been gradually -- very, very
gradually --
adopted paradigms from other systems (of course, always implementing them in a half
assed
way). Their philosophy is one of extreme conservatism in that they never introduce
anything
original and have no vision of going beyond existing paradigms. But neither do they
limit
themselves by bigotry. I have some sympathy for Apple, because even though the Mac
is weak in
many respects, the company did have vision. They introduced the Newton about a year
before MS
cancelled its first incarnation of the WinCE API (called WinPad). And in the late
80's they
conceived of Pink (aka Taligent) that would go beyond anything then (or now) in
existence.
Unfortunately, Pink was an expensive failure. As a fall back, they have now adopted
a UNIX
foundation for future versions of their OS. That's not too exciting a vision, but it
does
solve the immediate problem of getting decent multitasking.
As for UNIX, I have to say that there has been a general complacency to remain with
very,
very good implentations of a 1970's computing paradigm. UNIX still thrives because
for
many purposes a very good implementation of simple, old fashioned ideas is superior
to a weak
implementation of something more sophisticated. I do find it a bit of a depressing
philosophy though and in some cases deeply frustrating.
But, fortunately I don't think that's really the end of the story. There is a new
energy
among the younger developers of Linux and the traditional UNIX sense of community still
prevails. I believe that open, vigorous communities are ultimately more creative and
productive than closed systems. For this reason I expect Linux to break free of the
depressing
legacy of complacency and I see it as the most promising system for the future.
<snip>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lloyd Ferguson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Good Linux Books - Cheap (was - I need Linux for Morons
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:45:50 GMT
In article <8adq84$8dp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
wrote:
>In article <8abhm0$snh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Sage Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>...
>>as subject states, I need something even more basic than
>>"Linux for Dummies".
>
>If you or someone you know is a member (~ $35/yr) at Costco
>stores, you can buy _Mastering Red Hat Linux 6_, and
>_Linux: The Complete Reference, 3rd. Ed._, which are both
>900+ page books normally priced at $40, for only $24 each.
>They might have some small differences from Mandrake 7.0
>(based on Red Hat) but for the most part should be very
>informative. (You don't really need a book with "Idiot" or
>"Moron" in the title. 8^)
>
>There's also plenty of good help documentation on the Web,
>much of it at the Linux Documentation Project:
>
> http://www.linuxdoc.org
>
>A good search engine for Linux info is located at:
>
> http://www.google.com/linux
>
>If you still have problems, post questions in
>comp.os.linux.setup; that's the main help newsgroup.
>
>Don't worry -- after a few days of playing with the system
>using some good information sources, it will become easy
>and familiar.
>
>
And if you really want to get cheap, both the above-mentioned books came on a
CD Rom when I bought my RedHat 5.2 package. I think the whole thing was free
($20 with a $20 mail-in rebate).
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 14:34:38 -0500
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> my generalizations would be wrong if there were tools on linux comparable to
> visual C, vb, etc. is there such a thing?
...or if such tools were in the process of being created.
> why would linux community work on something they perceive as a tool for
> idiots? motivation for doing this is simply not there.
Work won't be done on tools for idiots. Work is being done on
tools that make life easier for geniuses, competent programmers,
and idiots at the same time.
> can you say that KDevelop is more powerful than vc ide? it looks to me like
> they are very a shallow copy of other ides.
Rome wasn't built in a day... and where did this sudden need
for "more powerful" come from? I thought you were just looking
for something "comparable to Visual C" -- in which case even a
shallow copy would be adequate.
> you also list libraries and
> api-s that are pretty much given on windows.
Your point being? If all you're looking for is an exact
duplicate of Windows, then why don't you just save us all the
trouble and stick with Windows in the first place? If you're
willing to go beyond your Microsoft prejudices, then there is
already a lot of good stuff available in the Linux and Open
Source development communities, and further contributions are
welcome.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:05:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:15:45 +0100,
Paul 'Z' Ewande� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > the technical books tell us what Win9x is a weak OS for multitasking,
> > reliability and hard to maintain.
> The experience show that while not as good as NT, it's not that far behind,
> regarding multitasking ability. Of course, I don't expect you to believe me.
Well, it depends how we parse your claim. If NT is not much
better than W95 ... then NT can't be good, because W95 is
undoubtedly not a good multi-tasker. (Can you say memory
protection? Preemptive sceduling?) That means IMHO that you are
wrong, NT is not _that_ bad.
-Wolf"just picking on linguistic details, not claiming anything"gang
PS: Why is that in c.o.linux.a? And c.o.os2.a?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:09:53 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On 10 Mar 2000 22:04:07 -0600, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>BTW, check comp.os.os2.setup.misc for the rundown of my trials and
>tribulations installing OS/2 4 on an IBM Thinkpad 600E laptop. At
>least the people there are friendly and willing to help.
Uh, sir, you *are* posting to a bunch of advocacy groups here. If you
want informed, friendly, people who are willing to help you are in the
wrong place I'm afraid.
There are comp.os.linux.{misc, setup} groups.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:24:48 -0500
"Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:01ay4.713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The Unbeliever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:H39y4.764$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > this will never happen, because the linux community already perceives
> > > that linux is the best development platform. this is off course far
> > > from the truth, but truth is not important. what is important is
what
> > > people think, not what actually is. so, there would be no push to
> > > improve something which is already 'best'.
> >
> > Interesting point of view. I feel part of the Linux community and
KNOW
> > that Builder is the best C++ development tool, and I know several
persons
> > that feel like me.
> >
> >
>
> The point isn't whether or not there is a better Linux-ONLY dev envt. For
> the vast majority of companies producing shrink-wrap client software,
Win32
> is an absolute requirement and a Linux version is, at best, a "might be
nice
> if it didn't cost too much" proposition. But suppose it were the case
that
> the best, cheapest way to develop Windows client apps was with an
> open-source tool that also generated Linux apps from the same source.
> Wouldn't that have the potential to make a big difference in the
> availability of Linux apps?
>
This would certainly be nice, but I don't believe development costs are the
motivating (or non-motivating) factor here.
In your case, your clients are not requesting Linux apps because their
customers or users are not using Linux. They all have Windows desktops with
Office and Notes and Outlook on them, so they all want Windows client
programs to run on them. This will not change until all these "standard"
applications are either available on Linux, or there are other programs that
can use those file formats and interoperate with them.
That's why I see great promise in Corel Office. It is a loser (market wise)
on Windows, but it might gain share again because it is cross-platform.
There is great pressure in business for standardization. The main reason I
migrated from Wordperfect 5.1 to Word was not because Word was a better
program, but that all my clients used Word and they requested documentation
files in that format. Companies that have Linux factions in them might
migrate to Wordperfect to allow all their departments to share files. If a
company such as Corel can threaten to gain market share because they have
Linux versions of their programs available, then the other office giants
will create Linux versions to counter this advantage. Once this need is
perceived by these companies, believe me, development costs or not having a
cross-platform tool will NOT be an issue.
--
Rich C.
"Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:38:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Note that it was also given in this thread's precursor that any OS
>> would have to be adjusted, 'even' W2K.
> Hmm... who said that? The whole point I was trying to make is, that
> Win2K is scalable enough it wouldn't have to be modified (in it's core,
> meaning the filesystem or the TCP/IP stack) like Solaris was.
You have zero evidence to support this claim (as with all the rest of
your claims) because no one has actually tried it yet.
Go ahead and post some more microsoft URLS that swear up and down that
the win2000 tcp stack can throw 2.4 gigs per second over a single
interface.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:42:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:38:01 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Note that it was also given in this thread's precursor that any OS
>>> would have to be adjusted, 'even' W2K.
>>
>>Hmm... who said that? The whole point I was trying to make is, that
>>Win2K is scalable enough it wouldn't have to be modified (in it's core,
>>meaning the filesystem or the TCP/IP stack) like Solaris was.
>>
>>-Chad
> The fact is that you don't know how much the Solaris stack was
> modified. You originally made a pull-it-out-of-your-ass claim that
> the stack was re-written, when in fact all Microsoft has said on the
> matter is that it "had to customize the filestore service as well as
> the IP stack." That's it... customize. They did NOT say that they
> had to modify the source code.
They couldnt have said that, because that would imply that Sun actually
let them see the source code for *any* portion of solaris, which has
never, EVER happened. For reasons quite obvious to anyone with a brain.
The fact is that the way solaris handles IP networking was modified;
the stack itself was not. IP networking under solaris is a monstrously
complex beast. The actual modification is of course a closely guarded
microsoft "secret", but if you know anything about the way solaris
handles authentication, clustering and filesharing its not too terribly
difficult to make a good guess.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:27:47 -0500
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> Jim Ross wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Either way Linux doesn't provide a way for those AOL users to use AOL in
> > Linux.
> > Score: Subtract many possible users. Extra bonus if you own a
winmodem.
> >
>
> I thought there was a way to use AOL with Linux. Can someone confirm
this?
>
> >
> >
> > First example, I would like to be able to copy a URL in KEDIT and paste
that
> > URL in
> > the Netscape Location Bar. Doesn't work. Well that says it.
>
> It works for me. I'm using using KDE 1.1.2
I guess I'm saying that for me the Netscape Location Bar doesn't accept a
paste at all.
I commonly under Windows copy URLs from text files and often paste into IE
Address Bar.
This is very convenience and hurts when not available in Linux.
>
> >
> > Second example, I would like every GUI app to install a program entry
and
> > icon into my default desktop environment.
> > As of now, it's a 50-50. Way too low.
>
> Here we get into personal preferences. I would prefer all GUI apps to
install
> a program entry but leave my desktop alone.
Sorry that's what I meant. I want new GUI apps to all install into the DE's
launcher, not the desktop/root window.
Many apps still don't.
Jim
>
> >
> >
> > Jim
>
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:16:20 GMT
In article <8achln$1ucb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ac8rv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Remembering or writing down (on paper or electronically) a set of answers
> >to a bunch of questions is how we used to do "kernel configuration management"
> >under RSX-11.
> That probably had about 1% of the device handling possibilities
> that you get with Linux.
Indeed. It definitely doesn't scale. That's where BSD wins hands down.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:18:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > An aside - what kind of kernel config utility do you think Microsoft
> > > used to configure the Windows 2000 kernel, huh?
> > I don't know, but their Xenix stuff was interesting. You designed your
> > disk partitions at kernel config time.
> Wow.
Yeh, we eventually wrote a program that read the partition tables from a text
file and patched the running kernel or the on-disk kernel image. Since root
was mountable no matter how the partitions were arranged, that worked pretty
well.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:21:50 GMT
In article <8ach6b$1tk6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Incidentally, how do you go about specifying things like default IRQs in the
> >Linux config file? That's part of your configuration documentation as well.
> I take the easy way and fill in the form in 'make xconfig' for that.
> The X setup is a bit more event-driven and lets you go directly
> to the component you need to configure. Do you ever make syntax
> errors when you edit the kernel file directly?
Yes, but a lot less often than I make mistakes filling in interactive forms,
and MUCH less often than I make mistakes going through a bunch of prompts.
"config ... syntax error ... fix ... done" is a lot less annoying than "y ...
y ... y ... n ... n ... whoops, that should have been yes ... ^C ... make ...
y ... y ... y ... n ... y ...".
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: 11 Mar 2000 20:44:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:08:59 -0500, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
>>Yes, it installed, I have no idea if it installed right because I haven't
>>really done anything with it, there isn't really anything to do with it
>>other than type shit at the CLI or fire up a browser in the windows-clone
>>GUI and be impressed that even if X crashes I can telnet in, kill the task
>>and try again!
>>
>><click>
> IOW, you did this with a chip on your shoulder. Just like the
> LinVocates that you complain about who install Windows just
> to find every problem they can with the install or the OS itself,
> with no intention of actually using it with an open mind to see if
> they might actually <gasp> like using it.
There is no chance that Dresden will ever, ever give linux a fair chance.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 14:40:16 -0600
Kool Breeze wrote:
> Guess what else. Their support staff for their 20 clients is the same
> size as ours. We have been supporting over 150 clients for several
> years.
A friend who works for a very well known software company told me about a
scaling test they did for one of their networking products. To set up the
test, they installed it on 100 NT systems and 100 Unix system. Elapsed
time for the installation: 3 days for the NT systems, 3 *hours* for the
Unix systems.
> BTW: Preliminary benchmarks have shown that Win2K does perform about
> 30-40% better so we will might be able to drop one of the 6 servers
> out of our NT-mess.
I thought it only performed better when you only had 32Mb of memory, and
worse otherwise, with the gap widening as the amount of memory increases.
And this was by MS's own report just a few weeks back. Has someone come
out with a new study?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
