Linux-Advocacy Digest #629, Volume #26 Sun, 21 May 00 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The Path Dependence (Loren Petrich)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution (ZnU)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Matthias Warkus)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Path Dependence (MK)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Skullboning WindowsNT problems... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) (Leslie
Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 21 May 2000 12:36:52 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Of course. GPL advocates were the ones who pushed for this
>>>>change and they don't like the LGPL much.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> That makes it the position of the Free Software Foundation
> not of the various groups that opposed the original licence
> including those that made their own alternative...
>
> ...licenced LGPL.
I haven't followed the latest License Wars series, but I thought
the real contentention was between KDE vs. GNOME, with GNOME's
main reason to exit being that KDE wasn't GPL'd. Did I miss
a twist in the plot? (Yes, I agree that LGPL is a relatively
sane license, but sanity rarely has much to do with anything.)
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.media,alt.journalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: The Path Dependence
Date: 21 May 2000 17:53:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 May 2000 09:08:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>>>Read it and weep, Loren.
>>>4. Evidence for Third- Degree Path Dependence [...]
>> Why don't you go and truck-bomb some military bases and police
>>stations? Yes, those infamous instruments of state coercion ;-)
>> Or dynamite some of those awful socialist roads?
>Why don't you admit that you lost the argument and you're plain
>ignorant, since all you have left is resorting to lame arguments unrelated to
>issue itself?
No, path dependence is completely real.
And MK's belligerent style gives himself away.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 21 May 2000 13:18:46 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Most of the time, I've not passed _any_ arguments to configure. I did
>for Qt and for KDE. However, those were not specific to my distro
>(SuSE 6.2) which I have been hacking away from its original
>configuration. It is also not a big deal to specify --prefix.
>
>I am no longer interested in distribution specific sources anyway. I
>am trying to move away from that. One of the reasons I have been
>learning Linux is so that I am in charge of my system configuration.
That is OK if you have time to kill. I just want to keep
a bunch of machines working well, so I like to take advantage
of the work the people building distributions have done.
>Granted, when I first started out, SuSE was great. It allowed me to
>set up my system without knowing much of anything. I still think SuSE
>or some other good package is the way to go for a beginner. However,
>I have started to outgrow it.
In what way? I have several things that I maintain locally either
because they aren't in the distribution or contributed rpms or
because I need local changes. This set has become much smaller
over the last few years as most worthwhile things have been
rolled into the distributions. Using recent Mandrake and
VALinux base distributions and the stuff on the PowerTools
CD, I think the only updates I've been doing is adding the
latest Samba (via rpm update) and building apache from scratch
for a few machines where I want mod_perl and jserve (and
adding a jvm for those). Even amanada has been included
in the VALinux distribution.
>While my system is still mostly SuSE, it is no longer pure SuSE. I've
>already diverged in some non trivial ways. OTOH, SuSE 6.4 does now
>provide some of the things I already have on my system, ie GCC 2.95.2,
>libc 2.0.7, etc. I'm evolving towards a generic GNU/Linux.
This is your choice, of course, and having that choice is a
very good thing. You just have to realize that this is a
fast-paced business and you are going to be repeating that
work at least every 6 months just to stay at the point
where a single distribution 'update' run would put you and
you have to track all the bugs and improvements yourself.
I prefer to take advantage of the thousands of programs
that someone else has bundled in a workable form and spend
my own time on a few critical ones where I actually need
more control. However, even with these I would be perfectly
happy to let a distribution update that worked as well replace
my older version.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 18:23:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brent"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8frjpm$vsq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
>
> > Finally, my network access at home is great. I've got a DSL connection
> > and a cable connection. My bandwidth to the 'real' internet (not the
> > intranet) is a lot better than from HP using a proxy server.
> >
> > Regards, Todd
> >
>
> Todd,
>
> Why DSL and cable. Cable blows DSL from the water.
Depends on the local providers, what you want to do, how much you value
your privacy, and how many neighbors you have who also want broadband.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: 21 May 2000 13:34:14 -0500
In article <8IIV4.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Thread support seems more mature.
>>
>> Thread support NEEDS to be. There's no other effective method
>> to achieve concurrency under NT. However, this is quite
>> disputable.
>
>There are some nice advantages of theads as they are lightweight.
>It doesn't seem like a process can be a perfect substitute.
One of the original design goals for unix was that processes
should be lightweight enough that you wouldn't think twice
about starting one to perform some job for you. It isn't
quite as lightweight as threads and sharing variables
among processes can be cumbersome, but it works for a lot
of things and avoids the kinds of bugs you get from implicit
shared memory. Under NT, process creation usually involves
dealing with a window context with the GUI in the kernel
and can't be considered lightweight.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 14:58:19 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 21 May 2000 00:40:00 GMT...
...and piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When will the new versions be finished?
>
> Is there a website that explains the new features?
We are on the verge of releasing GNOME 1.2. I don't know whether we've
got a compilation of the new features it will bring, but it's a
wagonload.
mawa
--
Wynot, Nebraska | Rabbit Shuffle, North Carolina
Brainy Boro, New Jersey | Stifflknee Know, North Carolina
Cheesequake, New Jersey | Shoofly, North Carolina
-- U.S. placenames
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:12:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400...
...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
This is pathetic. So you're *that* completely out of other arguments?
Nothing else to make a point with but *fonts*?
Anyway, if you use good fonts, antialiasing doesn't matter very much.
My fonts are not antialiased, but they aren't jagged either.
mawa
--
Everything's gonna be all right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 21 May 2000 14:09:45 -0500
In article <LVQV4.89391$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: >: No. This is an untrue statement.
>: >
>: >Never mind the fact if Linux can't contact the DNS server at
>: >bootup time, then it takes 4-5 minutes to time out the search for the DNS
>: >server.
>:
>: This only happens if it doesn't know it's own name. Put all the
>: names it has to resolve at bootup in /etc/hosts along with the
>: matching addresses (usually just your own). Most installs
>: ask for this and do it for your. I prefer to start a named
>: at bootup configured as primary for my local net, but that
>: is to take care of the other machines when the internet link is
>: down.
>
>The laptop does know it's own name and it only happens when the DNS server
>isn't available.
The DNS request should only be made for names that something
loaded at startup needs that aren't mentioned in /etc/hosts.
>The problem is that the laptop is moved between networks
>quite frequently and the Internet access is through the NIC.
That shouldn't be a problem - it is equivalent to a ppp user
booting up without his dialup connection. You just need to fix it
so it doesn't need DNS service at bootup.
>Since the
>networks don't support DHCP, the changes need to be made manually. Once it's
>done then Linux is booting just fine. This isn't much different from NT,
>with the exception of the DNS search time out. One interesting note, if I
>remove the DNS server addresses from the configuration on the Linux box,
>then it boots just fine. Regardless of which network it's connected to, or
>just off-line.
If you want to diagnose it, you can put a 'set -x' at the top of
the /etc/rc.d/rc script so you can see what it starting. Chances
are that it is sendmail or samba or something you don't even
need on a roving machine. If that is the case you can remove
that service instead of fixing the problem.
>: >Been there done that, X locked up and there was no network to access the
>: >Linux box from. Reset was the only option and we all know how well Linux
>: >handles that. Takes forever to reboot.
>:
>: Looking back, I don't think this has ever happened to me with
>: an *.2 version of RedHat. It is either coincidence or the get it
>: right by then.
>
>If it is not coincidence, then that would make the *.0 and *.1 version a
>buggy vaporware :)
No, just equivalent of NT before sp3, or win98 before SE, or Win2k
before (??? - I guess sp1 is out, but who knows).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:15:53 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 15:12:54 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400...
>...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
>
>This is pathetic. So you're *that* completely out of other arguments?
>Nothing else to make a point with but *fonts*?
>
>Anyway, if you use good fonts, antialiasing doesn't matter very much.
>My fonts are not antialiased, but they aren't jagged either.
Quite: all anti-aliasing buys you is a bit more flexibility
when it comes to font sizes. That may or may not yield any
real benefit for a random end user.
In many instances there is a suitable font for X available to
suit a particular purpose you would achieve under Win32.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 21 May 2000 14:21:01 -0500
In article <8g7rgl$qnf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >As Christopher pointed out, I find it odd that nobody that I
>> >know of that uses either Windows9x, or WindowsNT ever notes
>> >that they've had any troubles with them (and I'm usually the
>> >first person my friends come to).
>>
>> I have, on my desktop, an NT box that will not complete the
>> installation of sp6a due to disk errors that happen in the
>> temp files after it unpacks them. Chkdisk say the partition
>> is OK. I'd appreciate any advice on how to fix this without
>> having to reinstall all the software loaded on the box.
>
>Are you overclocking ?
>Did you use chkdsk with the /r switch ?
>Have you tried re-downloading the service pack from a different place ?
>What's the drive subsystem like (IDE/SCSI, disk controller etc) ?
>Any beta drivers ?
>Have you tried specifying to unpack the files to some other drive (/x) ?
>
>> (Hardware problems caused the crash that corrupted the disk
>> and this has since been fixed).
>
>What type of problems ?
The CPU fan failed, causing several random blue-screen deaths
before I realized what was wrong. It is fixed now and doesn't
crash, but the disk must be corrupted. Most things appear
to work except for the sp6a update which I though might replace
enough of the system files to fix up anything that might be
missing. None of the drivers or hardware have changed, and
the copy of the service pack is on a network share and has
been used on other systems. I haven't tried putting the
temp files on another drive - I'll give that a try tomorrow.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:46:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In America I guess. Here in the UK we still have local charges for
>>telephone calls (nothing is free yet) and a max. of 56K modems. ADSL
>>and Cable modems aren't here yet.
>
> That still leaves the cheap CD burners and $1 a pop blanks.
�1 a pop blanks if you shop around ($1.60). CD burners aren't as cheap as
in America.
In any case downloading in excess of 50 MBytes takes a while at 50Kbps and
runs up a nice fat phone bill.
It's cheaper to order the CD for $2.50 for any of the distros.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.media,alt.journalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: The Path Dependence
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:51:20 GMT
On 21 May 2000 17:53:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>>>Read it and weep, Loren.
>>>>4. Evidence for Third- Degree Path Dependence [...]
>
>>> Why don't you go and truck-bomb some military bases and police
>>>stations? Yes, those infamous instruments of state coercion ;-)
>>> Or dynamite some of those awful socialist roads?
>
>>Why don't you admit that you lost the argument and you're plain
>>ignorant, since all you have left is resorting to lame arguments unrelated to
>>issue itself?
> No, path dependence is completely real.
If so, you will not have the trouble explaining path dependence in case
of Beta being on market two years before VHS and existence of many
other typing systems except QWERTY instead of cutting the quoted
article like a true coward (you can snip it, I can quote it again)?
---
4. Evidence for Third- Degree Path Dependence
The literature of path dependence, both theoretical and empirical, contains
a number of claims that path dependent processes lead us to inefficiencies,
even for products sold in open markets. Brian Arthur cites as examples of
this inefficiency the QWERTY typewriter keyboard (1989), the internal
combustion engine (1989), and the VHS videorecorder (1990). Paul David
(1985) tells the story of the QWERTY keyboard as a clear example of market
failure. Paul Krugman's Peddling Prosperity contains an entire chapter
called "The Economics of QWERTY, where he concludes, "In QWERTY worlds,
markets cannot be trusted." (1994)
Empirical support for the third degree claim for path dependence rests
almost entirely on a handful of cases. Of these, the typewriter keyboard
history is the case that is most often invoked both to illustrate and to
support third-degree path dependence paradigm. (Liebowitz and Margolis
(1990) is a detailed account of this.)
This story is so important to this literature that we provide a brief
summary here. Christopher Latham Sholes patented his typewriter in 1868.
Sholes and his collaborators then worked on improving the typewriter.
Jamming was one of the major problems and it was addressed by the
arrangement of the keyboard. (One version of the story has it that Sholes
and his colleagues deliberately chose an arrangement that would slow down
touch typists. Unlikely, since touch-typing came much later). Sholes sold
the rights to Remington in 1873, and Remington made a few minor
modifications and began manufacturing and selling their typewriter, using
the QWERTY keyboard.
Alternative keyboard arrangements were developed as the market grew. In
1888, Francis McGurrin, who had taught himself touch typing on a Remington,
met Louis Taub in a typing Superbowl, held in Cincinnati. Taub was a very
fast hunt-and-peck typist who used a Caligraph typewriter that had a
different keyboard arrangement. McGurrin won all phases of the contest in
what is said to have been an amazing display. His victory demonstrated the
potential of touch-typing and some believe it also enshrined the QWERTY
keyboard arrangement as the standard.
In 1936 Professor August Dvorak patented his Dvorak Simplified Keyboard
(DSK), which he designed according to ergonomic principles. The DSK is
alleged to have been easier to learn and to allow typing at rates that were
twenty, forty, or perhaps even eighty percent faster (depending on the
source) than QWERTY typing. A study done by the US Navy purportedly
demonstrated that the full cost of retraining typists on the DSK was repaid
ten days after the typists returned to their normal duties. Yet DSK never
caught on.
We have, it appears, the perfect illustration of the path-dependent market
failure. An early start for the QWERTY arrangement led to its adoption as
the standard, and superior rivals have been unable to dislodge this
entrenched incumbent.
The story, however, is a myth. In 1956 Earl Strong, a professor of
industrial engineering at Pennsylvania State University, conducted a study
for the General Services Administration which showed that the investment in
retraining on the DSK could never be recovered. More recent ergonomic
studies indicate that the advantage for the DSK over QWERTY is either small
or non existent. And there is fairly strong evidence that the Navy study,
which was never released as an official Navy report, was conducted by, or
under the supervision of, one Lieutenant Commander August Dvorak, the Navy's
chief expert in time and motion studies during the war. Additionally, the
report is riddled with error and seeming bias.
Other aspects of the fable are also untrue. There were many touch-typists,
on both QWERTY and rival keyboards. There were other typing contests right
around the time of the Cincinnati contest, some of which were won by
non-QWERTY typists. So it was not the single happenstance of McGurrin's
choice that established QWERTY as the keyboard standard. It is unlikely,
therefore, that QWERTY could have survived if it were as poor as it is
sometimes alleged to be. If, in fact, some typewriter keyboard really did
offer advantages such that the retraining investment would be repaid over
every ten days, is it reasonable to think that companies would not make such
an investment?
Similarly, Liebowitz and Margolis (1995) reviews the history of the
competition between the Beta and VHS formats for videocassette recorders.
Here again the usual account leaves out important details. Beta, the story
goes, was a better videotaping format but everyone bought VHS because it was
more established. Consumers were concerned about compatibility, and so were
reluctant to take a flyer on an unusual format, no matter what its
advantages might be. The record shows, however, that Beta was actually first
on the market. When Sony developed the Beta format, it chose to use a
compact tape because it thought that portability of cassettes was important
to consumers. For their VHS format, which used virtually identical
technology (in part because the VHS and Beta creators worked closely
together on previous generations of videorecorder technology),
JVC-Matsushita chose a larger tape that offered longer playing time.
Contrary to the popular myth, reviewers did not find Beta to have any
advantages in terms of picture quality. Since the size of the cassette was
primarily what differentiated the two machines, the major difference between
the formats that seems to have mattered to consumers was the potential
difference in playing time. VHS licensees capitalized on this difference,
making it a highlight of their advertising campaign ("Four hours, $1000,
SelectaVision") and Matsushita used this feature to recruit corporate
partners for their technology. These strategies allowed VHS to stage a
come-from-behind win.
Thus the Beta-VHS competition is a fine example, not of path dependence, but
of its opposite. In spite of the fact that Sony was a sophisticated
competitor with established marketing and production capabilities, and in
spite of the fact that the Beta format had a two-year head start, they lost
out. Matsushita, the owner of the VHS format, was able to dethrone Sony by
giving consumers more of what was important to them.
There are other cases that have been claimepresentedd at one time or another
as path dependent inefficiency. For example, Van Vleck (1997) reconsiders
the case of Britain's small coal cars, long considered an example of
"technical backwardness." She finds that the small coal car was in fact well
suited to Britain's geography and coal distribution systems. Ribstein and
Kobayashi examine the possibility that the adoption of state laws concerning
limited liability companies exhibits path dependence and find little
persistence of initial statutory forms.
Our reading of the evidence is that there are as yet no proven examples of
third degree path dependence in markets. In non-market arenas, where there
may be less opportunity for entrepreneurs to profit from removing
inefficiencies, third degree path dependence is more likely to occur. Of
course, these non-market arenas may exist largely because political
entitiesbodies have chosen to pursue objectives other than economic
efficiency.
---
---
MK
Socialism is another name for self-destruction.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:52:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The goals were to design a better system
>which united the features of Windows 98 with
>USB support as well as bring in the network
>support found in NT under an all 32 bit
>compiled code base.
[snip]
>They didn't meet goal #1 very well and
>totally failed at goal #2.
They added USB support, so how did they not meet that one very well? They
added PnP (more so than Linux and ISA Pnp). Also, where is there non-32 bit
code in NT for networks?
>W2K is slower than NT as well as it still
>blue screens.
I read a long note by an Open Source advocate that Windows 2000 is _faster_
than Windows NT. From the technical description he gave, I find his
comments far more reasonable than yours.
>And at the same time have provided the public
>with no improvements to the desktop.
Depends what you mean by improvements. Fadout menus (can Linux do that?),
fadout Windows (now part of the API).
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: 21 May 2000 14:59:47 -0500
In article <QTIV4.161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's the server mentality.
>On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
Note that jagged fonts are an artifact of low screen resolution, low
resolution bitmap fonts, or poor quality outline fonts. Antialiasing
is a workaround, but you can also solve the real problem.
>Hint: Windows stability is "good enough" for most people on the desktop.
>NT's stability is "good enough" for virtually everyone on the desktop.
>So, with that out of the way, good fonts are next. Why use Linux, when
>Windows/NT has AA fonts and Linux+X doesn't?
If you have a high resolution screen and high quality postscript
fonts, antialiasing doesn't make a big difference.
>If X can't support AA, Linux can't be billed as better than Windows/NT, not
>as a desktop OS.
If you use low quality hardware on the desktop. Put some more pixels
there and X will use them nicely.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Skullboning WindowsNT problems... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: 21 May 2000 14:51:48 -0500
In article <8g7m2j$22m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>First, Leslie, in reference to your DHCP problem, you might
>want to have a look at this URL, if you're still interested:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q167/0/14.ASP
Thanks, I guess that is a possibility, but I'm using the ISC DHCP
server so the server-side issue would only be the same if
it is a required behavior. The win95 machines all appeared
to accept the re-assignment, but it could be that everyone
just rebooted them as a matter of course. We have since given
static assignments to everything we expect to keep running
all the time.
>>I have, on my desktop, an NT box that will not complete the
>>installation of sp6a due to disk errors that happen in the
>>temp files after it unpacks them. Chkdisk say the partition
>
>
>So, you mean the files are getting corrupted?
I think the issue is that the filesystem is damaged in some
way the eludes chkdisk. The damage came from some crashes
when the CPU fan failed, but it is fixed now.
>If that's the
>case, then could you start by listing the specs for the
>hardware that you're running it on? The first step I always
>take in diagnosing problems under WindowsNT is making sure
>that every piece of hardware is properly supported, and has
>proper drivers (ie: drivers written by the OEM). Microsoft's
>drivers are pretty good in most cases, but in a few cases,
>they have been unreliable (the Adaptec 2920 comes to my mind).
It is all pretty generic stuff, and all the same as before.
>It could just be a physical error on the platter of the disk,
>in which case, I don't know what else to recommend except to
>replace it. Or, it could just be that the firmware on the
>HD is outdated, or merely unable to properly communicate
>with your motherboard, etc. If you can indicate what your
>hardware specs are, I can at least try to help deduce the
>possibilities.
Chkdisk doesn't see any problems.
>I hope it's not a hardware issue, because if it is, I wouldn't
>know of any other way around that. On occasion, I've seem
>strange filesystem glitches get fixed by simply defragmenting
>the filesystem. Perhaps you could try using contig from
>http://www.sysinternals.com/, just for kicks? It's freely
>downloadable (with source, I think).
OK, I'll try those tomorrow.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
