Linux-Advocacy Digest #153, Volume #27 Sat, 17 Jun 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Could this EVER happen in Linux?(or WINDOWS S**KS A**) (Terry Porter)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Linux on S/390 (Gary Hallock)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (Russell Wallace)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linux app spec... (Terry Porter)
Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? ("Flacco")
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (mlw)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: Desktop Arm systems? (mlw)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Could this EVER happen in Linux?(or WINDOWS S**KS A**)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Jun 2000 10:11:17 +0800
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:17:57 GMT, TimL <no.private@replies> wrote:
>I guess one of the responsibilties of a good OS is to protect itself
>from the user. As far as I can tell Linux does a pretty good job of this,
>so long as user does not have root password. But I'm sure given the
>right circumstances a user could really foobar a Linux computer.
I've had Linux here full time since Aug97, and 6 of my kids have had their own
accounts. I've been able to sleep easily knowing they *cant* fubar my system.
> A users
>Win98 computer I encountered today was completely foobar'd. As the
>computer boots up, up comes the message:
>
>Windows Protection Error. Could not initailize device VKD. Press any key
>to reboot.
>
>Not a very helpful error message, I wonder if Linux would been so obscure
>if it encountered a similar situation(not that one could happen).
Who know ?
I havent had such a problem yet.
Usually you'll get a lot of helpfull info when there is a problem while
using Linux.
>After doing some deep digging I discover the actual file name of the driver
>is HIDVKD.SYS. No help from the OS at all there, found this out pretty much
>by luck. The nice little regedit utility is a Windows app, so that is completely
>useless in this situation. I was able to extract the file from the Win98 CDROM
>w/ the incredibly intuitve command:
Typical Windows lack of help.
>
>EXTRACT /A /L C:\WINDOWS\TEMP CATALOG3.CAB HIDVKD.SYS
>
>Unfortunately that did not help. Won't even boot into safe mode.
>Looks like a reformat and/or reinstall of the OS. And this user has a ton
>of installed software that will have to be rebuilt.
Windows is such crap!
> I have run into a handful
>of these Protection errors and the solution always seems to be reformat
>and reinstall. I somehow doubt that Linux would ever be so difficult
>in this regard, have any of you Linux Vets out there run into something
>like this in Linux?
No.
When I first installed Linux I did something silly as root (cant remember what)
after I had installed a ton of software, and Linux was unusable.
I just re installed Linux.
Everything worked as before, inc all the apps I'd installed.
(I'll not explain why this is so in Linux, as its another posts worth)
>
>TimL
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 15 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:16:51 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:39:48 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep. MS is about the best at the moment for BINARY compatibility.
>> Try loading a 2.0 kernel module on a 2.4 kernel. Boom.
>
>Lets turn that around and look at it this way: Try recompiling all the load
>able drivers for Windows 95 to run on Windows 2000. That is not possible
>because you don't have access to the source code. So, since Linux provides
>the soruce code for the modules, it is not nessary for them to be binary
>compatible.
>
>Once hardware manufacturers feel they are safe from the nondisclosure and
>noncompetition clauses. Their drivers could be supplied in source code form
>as well. Since a hardware manufacturer makes money from the hardware sales
>and not from the drivers, it would benefit them to offer the driver in
>source code form so that the public could not only have it optimised for
>their particular platform, that the public could port the drivers to other
>platforms. This would expand the market for their hardware without and
>expense or efforts on their part. The public could also improve the drivers
>in ways that the manufacturs either did not have to desire or foresight to
>consider.
>
>A problem in purchasing hardware more so for rare or expsnsive hardware is
>the worry about if the drivers will be available for it with the next
>versions of the operating systems. If the source code is out there, the
>users could update it for the next version of the operating system even if
>the manufacturer would abandon the product. So this wouldd relieve this
>worry on thr part of the potiential customer base. The less worries the
>more potiential customer may become actual customers.
>
>By requiring the nondisclosure and noncompetition clauses, Microsoft has
>slowed innovation rather than support it. That put the lie to so many of
>the claims of the supporters of Microsoft.
>
>As long as you have source code availability, there is relativly little need
>for binary compatibility. Linux has no binary compatibility what so ever
>between its installations across different processor families. But that
>makes no difference at all, a user of Linux on one platform would be right
>at home on any other computer.
>x86? ppc? 68000? alpha? Any differences between the hardware can be handled
>by the kernel and each platform would behave the same way. If they don't
>see the computer that they are using most ordinary users would not even know
>which platform they are using.
>
>So you comment of binary compatibility show you lack of knowledge or
>reasoning in this matter.
Not at all. It shows you don't understand the financial reality of
how much it costs a company to write a driver, or other software for
that matter.
It is entirely possible for a company to spend at least as much in
driver development for an OS as they do in the hardware development -
especially in the high performance area. What you are asking is the
companies essentially give away the money they have spent to
competitors so they can improve their products using your code. This
is a really stupid idea for any company.
The fastest video chips on Linux at the moment are nVidia based. The
drivers are closed source because nVidia invests a huge amount of time
and money in the software algorithms they use to drive their cards.
To give these algorithms to 3dfx or other companies is madness.
All I can see from your argument is that you have been so brainwashed
with the open source mantra that you fail to see the financial reality
behind the places it fails. There is value in algorithms. To deny it
is futile. To demand companies give away property is ignorance.
Open source has it's place. It isn't everywhere though.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:20:24 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:19:07 +0200, "Marc Schlensog"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[Snip]
>> The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
>> Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
>> speed? ;-)
>
>I hope this never will!
I don't know. XF5.o (possibly even with remote stuff removed) sounds
like a good option to me for the average user. Doesn't lock anyone in
and gives performance to those who want it.
>> >[deletia]
>[Snip]
>> The 386 was out, but the target platform was the 286. Windows 3.x
>> just introduced 386 enhanced mode which provided most of the things
>> standard mode did with a few extra bonuses.
>
>Wasn�t there Win/386 or what it was called?
Yes. It was a 386 enhanced version of Windows 2.0. Never really
caught on because the 386 wasn't in wide acceptance until Win 3.0 came
out.
>[Snip]
>> Yep. MS is about the best at the moment for BINARY compatibility.
>> Try loading a 2.0 kernel module on a 2.4 kernel. Boom.
>
>I guess, that�d be comparable with loading a WinNT driver in Win98
>or W2K. Nevertheless you are still able to run just the same binary
>under 2.0 as well as 2.4. Recompiled, you can even run it under
>Linux/Alpha or SUN or whatever.
No. NT is not an evolution of 9x. WDM actually lets you run some of
the same binaries anyhow, but this is more the exception than the
rule.
Note that you can run DOS 3.x drivers on Win98 if you really try hard.
That's what I was referring to. :-)
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:19:51 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on S/390
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/1532/4/:
>
> We rebooted it a couple of times, tweaking startup scripts and adding
> filesystems. Did I mention that this was all running underneath the VM
> environment? Ralph told VM what storage devices were to be visible to
> Linux and at what I/O addresses for their virtual controllers (yes,
> Linux actually thinks it's driving the hardware!), how many CPUs this
> virtual machine should have, and how much memory. So we had a two-way
> SMP box with 128 meg RAM and three or four disk "drives" with a couple
> of gig each--more than enough to play on.
>
> This is clearly not an exampal of Linux running "on the bear mettle". So
> I was wrong about one thing-- it's VM that runs it, not MVS. But Linnux,
> evan ritten in S/390 machine code, still neads VM to give it "virtual
> controllers" and "disk drives" like what would be found in a PC.
No, you still don't get it. If you saw MVS running as a guest under VM (which I have
seen many times) would
you say MVS needs VM to run? Of course not. Linux CAN run under VM just like MVS.
You can even run VM as
a guest under VM. I suppose you would argue that VM needs to run as a guest under VM,
making it logically
impossible for VM to exist. But Linux can also run, just like MVS and VM, on the
bare metal. It's not
like this information is buried somewhere. All it would have take was a few seconds
of your time to look
this up.
http://www.s390.ibm.com/linux/facts.html
Note, under the heading of "Three ways to run Linux for S/390". The first bullet:
Native - Linux can run on the entire machine, with no
other operating system.
You have simply made a fool of yourself (not that that's new to you, I'm sure).
Gary
------------------------------
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:31:33 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Incorrect. Anybody who has been doing C/C++ for more than an hour can
> trivially make that routine work for an arbitrary length string. Only
> those new to C, will believe that there needs to be a limit.
While I don't approve of arbitrary limits either (I think there are too
many of them around, and closed source software is no better than open
source), I don't see how it's so obvious how to remove this particular
one that anyone who'd done 2 hours of C would find it trivial. Could
you explain your reasoning?
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:34:20 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:22:17 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8igl2f$6c9$10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [Snip]
>> > The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
>> > Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
>> > speed? ;-)
>>
>> I hope this never will!
>
>I concur fully with this sentiment, NEVER! Why lock Linux into X? What
>about any other windowing system that may be devloped. X is sepperate from
>unix, always has been and I hope always will be. X can run on almost any
>operating system and it not dependent on unix. Unix can run X or can run
>without it, unix can run any other GUI written for it as well.
Ask yourself honestly if anyone is going to develop another windowing
system before the kernel gets rewritten? The amount of effort
required and the fact there would be zero apps supporting it make the
effort very futile.
Secondly, how does a kernel module for X lock Linux into X any more
than it is at the moment? Linux isn't locked into IDE drives and yet
they are in the kernel.
I think you've blinded yourself to the possibilities. There's a
kernel httpd at the moment which is frighteningly fast. Why not X?
>> > The 386 was out, but the target platform was the 286. Windows 3.x
>> > just introduced 386 enhanced mode which provided most of the things
>> > standard mode did with a few extra bonuses.
>>
>> Wasn�t there Win/386 or what it was called?
>
>There was no Windows called Win/386. There were three modes that Windows
>3.0 could be run in, real mode, standard mode and 386 enhanced mode.
>Windows 3.0 could run in real mode on any PC from a 8086 / 8088 and up.
>Windows 3.0 could run in standard mode on a PC with a 80286 and up. WIndows
>3.0 could run in 386 enhanced mode on a PC with a 80386 and up.
>
>By the time Microsoft began developing Windows to take advantage of the
>80286, the state of the art Intel processor was already the 80486 and Intel
>was designing the 80586 This means that they already knew the future
>requirements for the Windows line and had no valid excuses for their
>designed errors.
This is pure garbage.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q32/9/05.asp
Win/386 was released in March 89. I have the disks somewhere.
Windows development for the 386 was started in 1987 (when the OS/2 NT
project was started) and 386 development for Win2.x started about the
same time.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/BACKGRND/CN71898A.HTM
The 486 was released in 1989, well *after* 386 development for Windows
had began.
Basically, Microsoft didn't design much specifically for the 286
because it was brain-dead. They spent way too much time as it was on
making OS/2 work on it.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:40:38 GMT
In article <8ih3vp$mt6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande�"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <8ig2k4$2dk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande�"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > End users have no need "to futz around trying to learn the clunky
> > > > > OS",
> > > > > there
> > > > > are trained/experienced people for that.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I see.
> > > >
> > > > So end users don't have to learn how to use Windows? They just have
> > > > trained people do all their computer work for them?
> > >
> > > Nope. They use the apps, period. Launching an app, doing what has to
> > > be
> > > done, saving your work, and shutting down the computer seem as easy
> > > to
> do
> > > on
> > > both the Macintosh or on Windows. What they need to be trained on is
> > > how
> > > to
> > > work on a particular app, not the intricacies of the OS.
> >
> > Wrong. They also have to learn file managemnet, at the very least.
>
> And it's _substantially_ different from the Mac how ?
What does that have to do with anything?
You claimed that users didn't have to learn Windows. Whether it's
similar to another OS or not is irrelevant to that issue.
>
> > > That's why they are here for, not to fool around with their 'puters.
> >
> > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such dramatically
> > higher productivity level?
>
> I don't even try to. Then again I never experienced first hand a
> _dramatically_ higher productivity level.
Perhaps you haven't. But every published study says it's real. Too bad
your little theory isn't consistent with that fact.
>
> > > Trained people perform the maintenance of the boxes [setting up,
> > > installing/replacing hardware/software and such practices].
> > >
> > > > No wonder TCO is so bac on Windows. ;-)
> > >
> > > Where I work, there are guys who are paid on _both_ Windows _and_
> > > MacOS
> > > to
> > > take care of things such as setting up and tending to the boxes.
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced that it's an outrageously rare practice. Of course,
> > > your
> > > mileage may, and probably will, vary. :)
> >
> > All of which is irrelevant.
>
> It is ? I though we were talking of users "futzing while trying to learn
> the
> clunky OS."
>
> > You stated that end users don't have to learn to use Windows. That's
> > absurd.
>
> Sez you. They have to be able to access their files, launch their apps,
> save
> their work, and shut down the computer. And IMO, it's done as easily on
> Windows or the MacOS, from where I stand.
Whether it's as easy or not is irrelevant.
You claimed that users didn't need to learn Windows. Just how are they
supposed to do the things you listed if they don't learn Windows?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Jun 2000 10:48:11 +0800
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:41:10 -0500,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Simon????????????
>
>
>Mingus wrote:
Could be, even if Mingus isnt Steve, hes a Troll, and very Linux
ignorant.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 15 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:00:25 -0400
Can Linux do this?
We would like to put some "obsolete" hardware to use as web browser kiosks.
We have Win95 and IE installed on them now, but I though I'd give Linux a
try.
Requirements:
- Run pretty well on 486/66's with 16MB RAM.
- GUI that is fairly easy to use for a non-technical Windows user
- Support 3270 connections to VM mainframe
- Simple web browser with low memory requirements; must be easy to use for
people familiar with IE and Netscape.
- Must be able to "lock down" the desktop so that users cannot change the
configurations at all. The only things we want these machines to be able to
do is browse the web and establish 3270 sessions.
- As an added bonus, it would make my life easier if I can manage these
machines remotely from my office.
- All software components must be freeware.
Does anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of this, and suggestions
for products (3270 client, web browser), and techniques (ideal Linux config,
locking down desktop)?
I'm just getting started with Linux, and I really like what I see so far.
Thanks in advance for your opinions and suggestions!
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:02:25 -0400
If you can't do this with Linux after reading "Linux for Dummies" then
you aimed too high. ;-)
There is nothing that you have asked that can't be done in Linux.
Flacco wrote:
>
> Can Linux do this?
>
> We would like to put some "obsolete" hardware to use as web browser kiosks.
> We have Win95 and IE installed on them now, but I though I'd give Linux a
> try.
>
> Requirements:
>
> - Run pretty well on 486/66's with 16MB RAM.
>
> - GUI that is fairly easy to use for a non-technical Windows user
>
> - Support 3270 connections to VM mainframe
>
> - Simple web browser with low memory requirements; must be easy to use for
> people familiar with IE and Netscape.
>
> - Must be able to "lock down" the desktop so that users cannot change the
> configurations at all. The only things we want these machines to be able to
> do is browse the web and establish 3270 sessions.
>
> - As an added bonus, it would make my life easier if I can manage these
> machines remotely from my office.
>
> - All software components must be freeware.
>
> Does anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of this, and suggestions
> for products (3270 client, web browser), and techniques (ideal Linux config,
> locking down desktop)?
>
> I'm just getting started with Linux, and I really like what I see so far.
> Thanks in advance for your opinions and suggestions!
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:13:55 +0200
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <8ih3vp$mt6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande�"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > In article <8ig2k4$2dk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande�"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > End users have no need "to futz around trying to learn the
clunky
> > > > > > OS",
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > are trained/experienced people for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I see.
> > > > >
> > > > > So end users don't have to learn how to use Windows? They just
have
> > > > > trained people do all their computer work for them?
> > > >
> > > > Nope. They use the apps, period. Launching an app, doing what has to
> > > > be
> > > > done, saving your work, and shutting down the computer seem as easy
> > > > to
> > do
> > > > on
> > > > both the Macintosh or on Windows. What they need to be trained on is
> > > > how
> > > > to
> > > > work on a particular app, not the intricacies of the OS.
> > >
> > > Wrong. They also have to learn file managemnet, at the very least.
> >
> > And it's _substantially_ different from the Mac how ?
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
>
> You claimed that users didn't have to learn Windows. Whether it's
> similar to another OS or not is irrelevant to that issue.
I claimed and I quote:
"End users have no need "to futz around trying to learn the clunky OS",
there
are trained/experienced people for that.
You launch apps and save your work the same way on the "clunky OS" or on the
oh-so great MacOS."
or
"Nope. They use the apps, period. Launching an app, doing what has to be
done, saving your work, and shutting down the computer seem as easy to do on
both the Macintosh or on Windows. What they need to be trained on is how to
work on a particular app, not the intricacies of the OS."
Since apparently we can't agree to disagree, I'll say this:
End users have to spend gazillion hours to figure out how to to access their
files, launch their apps, save their work, and shut down the computer thru
the clunky OS which is Windows, which causes a sharp drop of productivity,
and since businesses are stupid, and don't mind losing money, they keep
using the darn OS anyway.
Moreover, The same operation are made in a totally intuitive and superior
way in the MacOS, even if they seem equivalent on both MacOS or Windows
[clicking on icons and menus] they are not, not by a long shot, thereby
dramatically improving their productivity.
Ok, I'm tired, I'm going to bed.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop Arm systems?
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:03:53 -0400
Daniel Mendyke wrote:
>
> Is there a source for non x86 based general
> desktop PC in the US? Most of what I've
> seen so far have been either Alpha based
> or 'black box' type servers.
>
> Anyone making a desktop style ARM machine
> or MIPS based system? Any source for motherboards
> that would work with generic parts?
>
> -Daniel
>
> --
>
> To reach me remove the 'nospam.'
> my address is 'daniel at clacknet dot com'
For a while there were some StrongARM computers out there. The reference
design, Shark, is out there (I think). I actually have two 233mhz
StrongARM DEC Shark Machines.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:06:36 -0400
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> TimL wrote:
>
> > In fact this person [Tim Palmer] seems to be quite
> > fearful of the command-line
>
> I'd be scared of command lines too if I spelt like him!
That is a very good point. A command line does require a bit of critical
thinking and thought organization. Perhaps a command line is too much
for some people.
It still does not matter. Linux has a choice of several GUI front ends.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
