Linux-Advocacy Digest #699, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (tinman)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Jonathan)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Jonathan)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... ("Archer")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:15:18 -0500
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 04:00:55 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>>
>> >The Mac128 came out 1/24/1984.
>> >The Mac512 came out 9/10/1984.
>>
>> In other words, both came out _well_ before the Amiga 1000, with 256k
>> of RAM. Thanks for proving my point.... (no offense to you; the
>> original poster who answered "The Amigas had more RAM" or somesuch was
>> wrong, though)
>
>Yes, but the point is when they were _designed_, not released.
Immaterial. What matters is what the products had when they competed
in the same market. If I introduced a PC with 640k in the year 2000
and bragged that it was designed in 1982, do I deserve kudos? Of
course not. The only valuable judgement is time - when it was on the
market.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:23:18 -0400
In article <8kq8hj$one$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >
> > >The Mac128 came out 1/24/1984.
> > >The Mac512 came out 9/10/1984.
> >
> > In other words, both came out _well_ before the Amiga 1000, with 256k
> > of RAM. Thanks for proving my point.... (no offense to you; the
> > original poster who answered "The Amigas had more RAM" or somesuch was
> > wrong, though)
>
> Yes, but the point is when they were _designed_, not released.
Then should we talk about the Lisa, with 1 meg of ram, introduced in
january of 1983? (I assume it was designed earlier.... (' ). But I don't
know how they did it--I had an Apple //e with 1 meg of ram too back in the
late 80s, but that ram card had an awful lot of chips on it.
And FWIW, I like the amiga, it was a great system--as I've said before,
when the first one hit town, my left leg was in an immobilizer, so I
talked a friend into driving me down to the store to take a look.
Outstanding graphics for the day.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:33:26 GMT
In article <LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took
5.5
> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much
tweaking at
> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
I installed W2K Advanced Server RC2 on a P!!!@500 with 256 Mb RAM and it
took about 3.5 hours. My Mandrake 6.1 install on the same box took
about a half hour.
> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first
time, and
> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I
can't
> wait to learn!
:)
> I'm converted.
Welcome to the club
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:27:16 GMT
In article <8kprc3$38k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--snip--
> Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with
64MBs of
> ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM.
Even
> that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four
other
> apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a
PPRO
> 200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only
that, the
> system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome
has
> come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
> because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most
people ran
> were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
> They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big
GUI
> based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created
the same
> problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
> 'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
> now. --well, in windows terms any way!
--snip--
I bet you took the default choice for which daemons to start on boot. #
out all the unnecessary services in inetd.conf and check again :)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:45:39 -0400
> You still haven't learned, Thorne.
And you still haven't learned to read, Tholen.
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:55:09 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:37 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> > > They have no choice but to enforce the law.
>> >
>> > I think you are being a shade optimistic. But lets say you
>> > are right.
>> >
>> > Why do you prefer, then, giving the Congress the choices, they
>> > being the people who wrote the law that says you can't have
>> > a Internet browsing in a sufficiently popular desktop OS?
>>
>> The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
>> OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
>> Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
>
>Are you saying Congress should be the one to decide
>whether browsers belong in OSes?
No, they should leave it to the experts in the field in
question both in and out of industry and perhaps merely
enforce it if need be.
[deletia]
This will of course lead to the likely finding that Microsoft
managed to keep considerable dominance for a rather long period
of time (by computing standards) despite their flagship product
being tremendously incomplete and the inevitable suspicions that
arise from such a situation.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 15 Jul 2000 18:42:44 GMT
So now I'm a dumb-ass if I can't explain modern operating systems to you
in 20 minutes. Enough. I'm done here.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:48:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> If you'll forgive me, Nathaniel, if that's the best I'm going to get,
>> then I'm giving up. Thanks for your time, I've learned a lot. I'm done
>> now.
>
>Very good T. Max. And to think, I almost took that email you sent me
>seriously. I should have known better than to think that you would ever
>admit anyone but you has any sense at all. Appreciate your time and
>insults. See you around.
And to think I thought maybe you weren't just a dumb bastard who only
knows how to troubleshoot by assumption. You seek to take advantage of
the ignorance of the reader; they haven't read the email.
I understand the figure of speech in use when you say "slow down some of
the bugs", but if that is the figure you chose after all I've done to
try to be a little more serious about troubleshooting, then you weren't
worth the effort. I hope someone else managed to learn something from
all my time, at least.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:54:41 GMT
Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
8kmjo3$vjr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <2Apa5.1507$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> (...)
> > > which we must all admit are natural parts of any typical person's
> use of
> > > computers.
> > > But that MS is a horrible company,
> > As of today, this has become an _opinion_.
>
> - backed by a court ruling...
I don't think it is written anywhere 'MS is a horrible company'. As far as I
know, there is some "you used some illegal practices here and there", and
a lot of "you are now so big some practices have become illegal for you".
Besides, this court, which is not specialized in IT, as far as I know (or is it ?)
took a decision on a matter on which many IT professionals do not know
exactly what to think.
If you want my personal opinion on the breakup... Windows 9x/Me/Whistler price
will increase if you want the system company to stay profitable. Office price will
decrease because there will be not need for Office to act as a cash cow for windows &
its
surrounding technologies.. As for the rest, we will lose the symbiosis between
app developer and system developer that provides the exceptional richness of the
Windows
UI. So probably : statu quo for monopolies (Windows will stay alive while Office is
still
on Windows only, and I personnaly think the difficulty of porting Office to linux is
dwarving the benefits, so...), and worse products.... Is that protecting the end-user ?
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:54:42 GMT
Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
8knaas$fku$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <8kmnac$gq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Truckasaurus wrote in message <8kmjo3$vjr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >In article <2Apa5.1507$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > that their products work only to suck money
> > >> It's an american company...
> > >
> > >Oy, Nationalism... Nice going!
> > >
> >
> > Yannick is not American - I believe he was implying that it was
> typical for
> > an American company to make products whose only use is to suck money.
Exactly my point here.
>
> Exactly!
> I do not distinguish a nationalist that says "your country is bad" from
> one who says "my country is better".
>
Never said "your country is bad". I just said that many american companies are
targeted only at sucking money (not implying that USA are the only place where this
is to be seen, of course), and therefore a company sucking money is not
"horrible" (= an horror compared to what is generally seen) , it's unethical (which
makes it ugly, not "horrible").
> > Were he American, however (and there are a lot of Americans who think
> that
> > ms represents the ideal company - it is American and it makes a lot of
> > money, therefore it should be encouraged no matter how it is making
> that
> > money), then condescending sarcasm would definitely be the correct
> reponse.
BTW, I do not consider MS to be an ideal company. I consider Windows,
especially the NT-based flavors, without being perfect, to be much better than
linux for desktop computers, that their Office suite and development tools
are (now) rich and reliable enough for my needs. And I think that MS has enough
money to transforms ideas into facts.
If you want a summary, MS is a 'better' company.
Not a ideal one, far from that, because of illegal practices, etc...
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:11:17 -0400, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just checking in. (= Haven't been here in a LONG time. I used Linux for a
>couple of years back in the RH 4.2 to 5.1 days. Ditched it because I just
>didn't have the time, was learning windows development, going to school, and
>the 'linux allure' just didn't grab & wipe off on me as easily as it does
>some. Not to mention the email threats from COLA I got one day. Nice bunch.
>(-:
>
>So, I decided what the heck, I've got a little time this summer - I'll try
>it again.
>Quick update from the front:
>
>The distros are doing exactly as I knew they would three years ago. Trying
>to emulate windows installation programs. It isn't working. They're better
>in some regards, worse in others. I've installed W2K, and on this PC, winME.
>The installation was flawless.
I kind of agree with this statement although I feel that a gui based
installation is somewhat "friendlier/less intimidating" to the average
new linux user as long as there is a sfety net to over-ride the gui
based install. That being said, the execution varies wildly with the
distro. Corel is an example. If it happens to work on your system, it
works quite well, but if it does not like something about your
particular system, you are dead at the starting gate.
Mandrake is excellent as is Caldera and Redhat is ok. SuSE's YaST 2
refuses to work on my system (it mis-identifies the size of my
partitions and thinks it doesn't have enough space to install) but the
original text based YaST was/is a beauty.
Caldera Lizard worked fine as long as I didn't try to go back and look
at something (hit the back or details button) while it was installing.
Even set up my ISP with correct phone numbers. Very impressive!
>RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when it's
>there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of what I
>installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus. The default installs I
>think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you hanging with a
>useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter, or won't let you
>setup things they didn't install very easily.
Corel is notorious for doing that. Things might have changed since I
tried it about 6 months ago (it worked fine on MY system).
>Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.
Install is actually superior to Windows IMHO.
>The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
>Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if
>you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not right.
This is a sore point with me and many others as well. While Linux
offers some things that Windows does not offer, like virtual desktops,
it still seems clunky to me. I just bought an iMac (my first) and THAT
is how an interface should function IMHO.
>The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to automagically
>plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no matter what WM you
>use? I know these things can be configured by hand in the config files, ..
>but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember? Drag and drop support?
>Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here, remember? We're better than
>windows, remember? Not at gui's your not. Not even in the same ballpark in
>the same league, in the same decade.
I agree, but development is plodding on and they are all getting
better with each new version. Aside from bug fixes and cycle sucking
animation, what has changed about the Windows desktop in the last 5
years?
Active desktop (or whatever it is called?)? That's the first thing
users typically turn off.
Some folks like to do everything manually, and for them these WM's
offer that level of control.
>Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MBs of
>ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM. Even
>that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four other
>apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a PPRO
>200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only that, the
>system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome has
>come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
>because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most people ran
>were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
>They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big GUI
>based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created the same
>problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
>'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
>now. --well, in windows terms any way!
I don't swap on my 128 meg box or my 256 meg box. I think Linux uses
memory differently than Windows although I may be wrong here.
Try Windowmaker as a decent small footprint WM. I used to like
AnotherLevel but that was an enormous cycle sucker.
>If it wasn't for bedroom hackers wanting their PC's desktop to look
>different because they have the newest theme of the month, with skins
>flapping off the walls I don't think many home users would be coming to
>linux at all.
Some of those "skins" look outstanding!
Most are much too dark for my taste though :(
I feel $$$$$$$ is the main reason people are coming to Linux. MS has
pissed off enough people, even people who know nothing about the doj,
with it's "pay for upgrades" crap that they are looking and all of the
press Linux has received makes it a prime candidate for
experimentation.
> The distro's are just turning out bloated slop that doesn't
>have HALF the features of windows. Thank god for building your own Linux
>setup. Otherwise, I'd ditch it for good. This 'takeover the desktop' thing
>is just as I predicted. A mess. The iceWM is all I need with as many
>terminals as my screen will hold, running gcc or simple editors, writing
>scripts so on and so on. Internet? Big apps? Forget it. NN is just plain
>sub standard compared to IE. Have you ever really used IE? It's another
>world. Talk about features and ease of use. Star office? I've seen it. I
>wouldn't install that bug fest if Larry blew my dog. You think office is
>bad? Whew. Star office is chilling.
I agree here mostly. When you consider the price of StarOffice into
the mix, you tend to forget some of the bloat however. To save $300 or
so over MSOffice I can live with it. It is getting better with every
release also.
>Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
>good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.
My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the server/technical
user market and should forget going for the desktop.
A distribution like Slackware is what I believe Linux is really about.
Linux shouldn't try and cheap'n itself by offering half assed
solutions, but instead should focus on the many things it DOES do
well.
Slackware is Linux in it's rawest form. it makes no assumptions and
for the most part expects the user to know what he is doing. In the
hands of some one who knows Linux, this translates into awesome power
and control over the OS.
This is IMHO of course, and I DON'T fit into that catagory :)
In conclusion, a blanket statement like one step forward and 2 steps
backward is something I really don't agree with.
DP
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:30:24 -0400
In article <9dQb5.13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> > In article <bVub5.36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> tinman wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Tinman wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's tinman. ('
> >> >>
> >> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
> >> >
> >> > Jumping into conversations again Slava?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Illogical. Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
> >
> > What alleged "the"?
> >
>
> Reading comprehension problems, eh tinman? The question was:
>
> "On what basis do you make that claim?"
What alleged "claim?"
> >> >>
> >> >> > And why else would I post?
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you know?
> >> >
> >> > Why do you ask?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't you know?
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> What you think is illogical is irrelevant. What you can prove is
> relevant.
What I can prove is irrelevent. What I can enjoy is relevent.
> > Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
>
> On the contrary, you simply failed to locate the response.
Where is your logical response? Why, no where to be found!
> >
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Not surprising, considering that you are being digestified.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On the contrary.
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >
> >> > What I can prove is irrelevent, only what I write is relevent.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> How are the daisies on irrelevancy lane, tinman?
Blooming well, now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
> >> >>
> >> >> What alleged "polycarbonate exterior"?
> >> >
> >> > <*tink* *tink*> This one.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Evidence, please.
> >
> > Reading comprehension problems, Slava?
> >
>
> Obviously not.
Incorrect.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:40:02 GMT
Calm down people!!! I was there for the install - it took 20 minutes for
gentus (*maybe* 25)- and about 4.5 hours for win2k - BUT there were
extenuating circumstances Jeff did not go into - He is running a UDMA-66 HDD
on his A-bit board - Win 2k refused to recognize the drivers for it to
install the damn things and he didn't have an extra IDE cable to put it on a
reg IDE channel (if you know hardware, you'll know that UDMA has that
annoying plug at pin-xx) - NOR would the bios bypass (to disable UDMA) work
for it for some reason. It WAS a command line install - had to be for
various reasons because of the problems - and admittedly that took most of
the time (no. booting from the CD did NOT work in this instance thank you
very much)
After it copied the install files (which took a VERY long time because of
the lack of smartdrv (read ahead caching)) we had to use his CD-ROM cables
to hook the HDD up to IDE0 so the OS would be able to find it, AFTER
successfully copying the install files - and YES this is totally fucked up.
(part of the reason booting from CD was not an option) Have i mentioned that
the win2k drivers for UDMA will not work until AFTER the install? So for all
you smart asses out there, trying to specify additional SCSI drivers during
install is a waste of time - there were a lot of wastes of time trying to
get this working - hence the 4.5-5 hours. Part of it was fiddling to get it
working. I have no idea why Jeff Hummer chose the words command line
"tweaking" - i can only assume he meant that booting from the CD did not
work and therefore we had to run winnt.exe to install.
Now, gentus is a-bits flavour of red hat and it therefore has no problem
recognizing it's own UDMA channel. So that install went without a hitch, not
counting the lack of sound :( which is being remedied as soon as Jeff
gets around to configuring his sound card.
So - now the controversy can finally end, with all parties satisfied -except
Jeff Szarkas (smartass?) who is never satisified, judging from his many
posts to this group.
>
>
> > On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
> > installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first
> time, and
> > it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I
> can't
> > wait to learn!
>
> :)
>
>
> > I'm converted.
>
> Welcome to the club
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:43:30 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 04:00:55 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Mac128 came out 1/24/1984.
> >> >The Mac512 came out 9/10/1984.
> >>
> >> In other words, both came out _well_ before the Amiga 1000, with 256k
> >> of RAM. Thanks for proving my point.... (no offense to you; the
> >> original poster who answered "The Amigas had more RAM" or somesuch was
> >> wrong, though)
> >
> >Yes, but the point is when they were _designed_, not released.
>
> Immaterial. What matters is what the products had when they competed
> in the same market. If I introduced a PC with 640k in the year 2000
> and bragged that it was designed in 1982, do I deserve kudos? Of
> course not. The only valuable judgement is time - when it was on the
> market.
Huh? It was pointed out that Apple probably didn't implement PMT because
the original Mac didn't have the RAM. The fact that a later Mac with
more RAM was on the market before the Amiga shipped doesn't make any
difference -- Mac OS had already been written.
--
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>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
