Linux-Advocacy Digest #195, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Arthur Frain)
Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions (Christopher Browne)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (mlw)
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Marketplace Mysteries (Jerry McBride)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Jun Nolasco)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Loren Petrich)
Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux? (Chris Lee)
Re: LOSEDOS can physically destroy your hard drive! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:25:39 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Yes, that is right. Congress can legally select any person, and
> sentance them to death. And I have no problem with that.
Well apparently the founding fathers had a problem
with it, since they put in Article I Section 9
Clause 3 (know what a 'Bill of Attainder' is?).
of the Consitution. Need a URL?
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:13:02 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Des Dougan would say:
>I know little about FreeBSD, other than its background and that it is
>a closed development rather than the open environment Linux flourishes
>in. That said, I am working with a client who has been led to believe
>that FreeBSD is more secure (as a web hosting platform) than is Linux.
>
>Can someone point me at resources which explain the operational
>differences so that I can understand whether this is indeed the case?
>Expert comment is also welcomed.
Actually, au contraire, it may be reasonably argued that FreeBSD has a
_more_ open development environment than does Linux.
--> If you want something to get into the Linux kernel, you have to
convince Linus Torvalds that it is a good idea.
--> If you want some code change to go into FreeBSD, you need to
convince one of a reasonably large "core team" that have CVS
update privileges on the source code base.
<http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/staff.html>
<http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/staff-committers.html>
The fact that there is only one main FreeBSD "distribution" has the
result that attention is not spread so many ways the way it is with
the _many_ Linux distributions out there. Thus, security fixes may
only need to be applied _once_. Add to this that FreeBSD has a
somewhat centralized <http://www.freebsd.org/support.html#cvs> CVS
repository, only replicated by Debian.
There are rather a lot of eyes looking at Linux, but some of that
represents replicative effort as you have people fixing some of the
same "holes" on different distributions.
Beyond that, there are a number of interesting security projects out
there to improve the security of both Linux and FreeBSD; not all
entirely usable, but some good things should fall out of it.
The more important issue than the OS is very likely the quality of the
system administrator; a good sysadmin that understands security can
make either system a lot more secure than a sysadmin that is less
competent. And if you've got that good sysadmin, you'd likely be best
off picking the system that they prefer.
Long and short is that there's not a straight answer of "Oh, of
course! Linux is _clearly_ more secure than FreeBSD due to A, B, and
C." Or vice-versa.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
"Without insects, our ecosystem would collapse and we would all
die. In that respect, insects are far more important than mere
end-users." -- Eugene O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:14:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:56:53 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 05:57:50 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:43:59 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> >> >> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the
>implementation in any
> >> >> >> >> >> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In
>"solving" it,
> >> >> >> >> >> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same
>thing.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> pseudo-pnp does.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> That's a BIG difference.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Yes it does.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
> >> >> >> >> is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this
> >> >> >> >stuff?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Personal experience, shared experience.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ah, so you're the one who used to brag about installing "daughterboards".
> >> >> >What you just did is what psychologists call "projection". I just call it
> >> >> >"merrily stuffing words in my mouth to cover your own inadequacies".
> >> >>
> >> >> You can always use dejanews if you think you'll actually
> >> >> find evidence of such things,
> >> >
> >> >Evidence of what things? I'll certainly not find evidence of myself bragging
> >>
> >> ...of your assertions.
> >
> >What assertions?! You're the only one foisting assertions with no
> >explanation. Take this one above for example. How ironic.
> >> >> >Ah, so you're the one who used to brag about installing "daughterboards".
> >> >> >What you just did is what psychologists call "projection". I just call it
> >> >> >"merrily stuffing words in my mouth to cover your own inadequacies".
>
> That is most certainly an assertion.
Not at all. I backed it up with context. Here's the skinny [since you
deleted the wordier version]:
You say:
"You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC is not something
you can use for bragging rights anymore."
[your assertion which you have failed to back up]
Since it came out of left field, as usual, I ask:
"What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this
stuff?"
To which you answer:
"Personal experience, shared experience."
So I conclude, from the context present, that said "grousing" about not being
able to brag, etc. etc., is your personal experience.
Of course, this is the second back-to-back posting in which I've explained
this to you, but you saw fit to delete the explanation last time and ask
again. I'm only too happy to oblidge again.
Meanwhile your assertion still has nothing supporting it whatsoever.
I see you also failed to address the rest of the points made or back up
anything else you've said. What a coward! That is, of course, unless
> [deletia]
somehow represents all the evidence necessary to back up your claims.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 22:28:00 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I can't speak to anything YOU think, but Lycos still uses FAST. And if
> > you happen to do a search on Lycos, you will see the FAST icon at the
> > bottom. Check your facts first.
>
> I just did a search on Lycos, and I see no FAST icon. I do see an icon for
> DMOZ and Direct Hit, but nothing relating to FAST.
>
> I tried with both IE and Netscape, just to be sure it wasn't something
> related to content targeted pages.
>
> > These are facts:
> > Lycos IS a customer of FAST.
> > Lycos does use the FAST search engine for web search.
> > FAST does use FreeBSD as the search OS.
>
> The only evidence of this you've presented seems to be wrong.
I don't know what is happening to you, but every one else seems to see
the FAST icon.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 21:25:59 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>That's 40 different network drivers. Certainly more than what is
>>>needed for a beowulf, unless you are building an extremely
>>>heterogenous one. Nonetheless, the cost is still much less than what
>>>Linux has saved them.
>>
>> It could entirely depend on the sort of budget involved and
>> what kind of spare parts you have on hand. More cards supported
>> means that you have better options choosing components and
>> reusing spare parts.
>
>Go to www.beowulf.org and see what they used in their Beowulfs. Only a
>few different cards.
How much do you suppose it was worth when choosing those cards
to know the exact details of nearly all of them?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:35:50 -0500
On 2 Aug 2000 20:53:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>Every entry level windows user I've seen learned how to reboot
>>>>right away. I think most could handle making one extra choice
>>>>there.
>>>
>>> No, there would merely be a default configuration so that the
>>> end user wouldn't have to strain their brain.
>>>
>>> Unix has been automating these sorts of things before DOS existed,
>>> nevermind Windows.
>>
>>Seems like an amazing amount of trouble when simply buying a Win98
>>machine in the first place is really what the customer wants....
>
>Customers hardly ever want an OS. They want apps that are
>good enough and don't cost much. Windows gained it's popularity
>by being cheaper that the competition. Now it isn't, and
>with StarOffice the Linux apps are good enough.
Then why don't we see Linux boxes shooting up in popularity?
------------------------------
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: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:37:12 -0500
On 2 Aug 2000 20:58:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.intuit.com/support/quicken/options/live_phone.html
>>>
>>> For general 'tutorial' class tech support you will be
>>> paying $1.95 per minute actual human phone support.
>>
>>You left out just a -little- bit:
>>
>>Free stuff:
>>
>>Installation of Quicken 98, 99, and 2000 for Windows and Quicken 98
>>and 2000 for Macintosh (we help you install the program onto your PC
>>or Macintosh).
>>Data conversion from prior versions of Quicken to current versions of
>>Quicken on the same platform (ex. Windows to Windows, DOS to Windows,
>>or Macintosh to Macintosh).
>>Product defects that are known to Intuit.
>>Autopatch downloads.
>>Registration of Quicken.
>>View and Pay Bills.
>>Quicken Quotes server issues.
>>
>>Does GnuCash offer any of that? Does GnuCash offer even $1.95/minute
>>tech support?
>
>Maybe not quite all of that, but how is Quicken in the free-upgrades
>forever department?
That's just it - people are willing to pay for this stuff. In other
words, they want it so badly, they pay for it rather than taking a
FREE alternative (which, granted, nobody knows a thing about; *I*'ve
never heard of GnuCash, and from the screenshots it looks like Money
circa 1995 or so....nice, but not quite up to today's par).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Marketplace Mysteries
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:37:21 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Laura Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> > > Pricewatch doesn't seem to have any realistic prices for the K6-3 (the
>> > > version with built-in cache).
>>
>> Yeah! What is up with that!? How come I can get an entry-level 500 mhz
>> Athlon mobo/cpu for the same price as a crummy K6-111 500 cpu alone?
>> That's nuts! And how come It's only 50 bucks for a K6-2 500 cpu, 50 for
>> a k6-3 350, and a whopping 200+ for a K6-3 500? What the hell? Where's
>> the logic? Especially with Athlons out now. Shouldn't they be giving
>> away K6-3s for party
>>
>> BTW, which is the better buy: a $50.00 K6-3 350 cpu, or a $50.00 K6-2
>> 500?
>
>Depends. They require different motherboards..
>
Not true. They are both destined to plug into a socket 7 motherboard. AMD's own
website lists (for instance) a Soyo 5ema+ as being compatible to both mentioned
processors and even lists jumper block settings to achieve correct operations.
You can get the soyo plus a k6-2 550mgs for as little as $138.00 (us)...
--
*******************************************************************************
> No one can hear when you're Screaming in Digital! <
*******************************************************************************
> 1:05am up 0 days, 2:17:21, load: 24 processes, 89 threads. <
*******************************************************************************
* NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet - http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
*******************************************************************************
* ICQ# 76727806 *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: 3 Aug 2000 03:09:17 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:28:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>The government throw you in jail for tax fraud if you don't pay your
>>federal tax, but Microsoft can't do anything if you opt out of the
>>Microsoft tax ? Subtle difference.
>
> You can avoid paying taxes the same way you can avoid
> paying the microsoft tax: opt out of the system.
How do you "opt out" of the tax system ?
> Either forego retail computing or forego computing entirely.
I don't get this assertion. All you're saying is that you can't buy
a computer from most retail outlets if you use Windows. But no one
will bang down your door and throw you in jail for owning a computer
without Windows. OTOH, if you earn money in the US, and you don't
pay taxes , you will possibly have charges against you.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Jun Nolasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 23:16:00 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was not aware at all that we were talking about single box versus single
> > box. I didn't see that mentioned. I will be interested to see how 32 way
> > boxes
>
> (for those who have actual computer experience, "32 way" means 32 processors)
>
> > from Compaq, unisys and others perform again these *nix boxes...
>
> I guarantee, hands down, no contest, that a sun enterprise 10000 running
> solaris would absolutely kick their ass.
People seem to be missing the point ... or are avoiding the original
topic.
Attacking the PC architecture to dispute the TPC-C results? Sorry folks
but that just won't cut it.
> Compaq doesnt even know what hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit backplanes
> are yet.
So, what does the absence of hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit
backplanes have to do with the published TPC-C results?
Jun NOlasco
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 3 Aug 2000 03:20:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> This from someone who considers himself a victim of the government.
>Are you saying that if a shoplifter preys upon the goods in a certain
>store, and that store is still in business at the end of the year, then
>the shopowner is not a crime victim?
Of course not. Mr. Kulkis seems obsessed with victimhood; many
right-wingers seem very angry that anyone other than themselves dare try
to appropriate victim status.
> I will GLADLY come out to Livermore, California, and
>non-fatally shoot you several times with a rifle, so that you can
>demonstrate your true beliefs that one can be harmed by another
>party and yet NOT be a victim of that parties actions.
Which tells us a *lot* about Mr. Kulkis.
>> >> Communism is NOT a unified front.
>> >This does nothing to disprove the testimony of SEVERAL defectors
>> >who all say that the whole "collapse of the Soviet Union" is a
>> >charade to get the US to unilaterally disarm.
>> I've never heard of any such thing. But then again, birch trees
>> are not my usual habitat.
>You still have not provided a shred of evidence to counter the
>testimony of high-ranking defectors from Soviet Russia.
Which ones? Nobody else takes this conspiracy theory seriously,
except for a few residents of groves of John Birch trees :-)
--
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] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 03:29:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> Just examine the per distro breakdown.
>
> Even by itself Redhat only has about half the reported problems
> as NT5 with the other distros coming in with about 1/3rd or
> less of Redhat's problems.
Actually, This doesn't mean what you think it means. The other distros still
have the same problems but 90% of the time it's RedHat who makes the
annoucement basically because they are usally the first ones who run across
the problem and make a public annoucement about it.
It's why I like RedHat better than say Mandrake or the rest. They don't
actually do anything but monitor Redhat's alerts and copy their
bugfixes.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: LOSEDOS can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:34:24 GMT
I must be doing something wrong with this code, I keep getting an EPERM
error whenever I try to run it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:41:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> Linux = Yet Another Unix.
Partially true. Linux was designed to be UNIX compatible. It
was designed to run applications written for UNIX. And it even
enjoys contributions from some of the original authors of
the BSD kernel.
At the same time, Linux was so cheap, and ran on such a wide variety
of hardware and software that tens of thousands of developers began
contributing ORIGINAL software written for Linux.
The irony is that now, UNIX vendors are trying to make sure that
their systems will run "Linux programs". It really isn't that hard.
> I think that every one of these Linux cult
> members should be sentenced to one
> year of having to perform tech support
> for end-users of that OS.
Actually, I've spent 10 years supporting UNIX users, and 5 years
supporting Linux users.
> Then they could explain to the average user why
> Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware,
> such a S3-based graphics.
Windows 2000 only runs on hardware certified to run Windows 2000.
You could **TRY** to run Windows 2000 on a 486/50, but it probably
wouldn't work very well, and it probably wouldn't run most of
the applications originally on the machine (Windows 3.1 Apps).
More important, Windows 2000 tends to only run well with certain
software as well. Many companies have had to wait for upgrades
to Netscape Navigator, Lotus Notes, and other 3rd party applications
which are required by these companies to show compliance with
court judgements, SEC and regulatory issues, and other requirements
Microsoft avoids like the plague.
> Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
> SVGA kernel.
Why explain to the end-user how to configure a raw inconfigured
Linux configuration to a randomly selected hardware configuration
(or worse, a configuration deliberately configured to make it as
difficult as possible to install Linux).
> Expain what a modeline is...
> Need a parallel port ZIP drive?
Scriptable. IOMEGA could provided it, as could the OEM.
With 20 possible PPA devices/configurations, you can't always
assume that the PPA will always be a ZIP. Much like Windows.
> Say the magic words and type the completely
> cryptic commands and no problem!!
Punch the little buttons on Linuxconf or DrakConf and
the magic little script gets generated for you, runs,
and remembers what you did in something you can edit
with a different tool (just in case you get tired of
waiting for windows to pop-up and close).
> Right?? Red Hat vs. Mandrake vs. SuSE vs. whatever....
> standing in MicroCenter and seeing the puzzled looks
> as normal people try to decide WHICH Linux is better.
A bit like trying to decide which car is better Chrysler or Plymouth,
Ford or Lincoln, Chevy or Pontiac. It seems that people LIKE to
have choices.
> Just bought Code Warrior?
This is an "idiot user" application? Somebody using Code Warrior
(a full-featured C/C++ IDE for Linux) probably knows enough about
Information technology to get beyond most problems.
> Doesn't work with your
> X-Server because you have an S3 Trio 3D video card
> and have to use frame buffering?
Why are you using frame buffering on an S3 Trio?
Use the S3 Driver. This is a direct command driver that
doesn't need video frame buffering. Frame buffering is only
needed for either really dumb SVGA cards or really fast AGP
cards. In each case, the frame buffer is simply pointed to
the appropriate "desktop" and fed directly to the display circuitry.
The S3 driver is a vector graphic chip, and the Trio 3D also contains
algorythms for XYZ scaling from 3D points to 2D vectors (among other
things).
> Oh well....explain THAT one.
You just did. You assumed that you should be using the SVGA frame
buffer driver instead of the S3Trio driver. It works, but you'll be
happier with the driver designed for the chip.
> Just purchased Accelerated X and
> it also does not function, even though
> there is not a HINT on the box of
> unsupported hardware? Oh well....
Accelerated X and Metro X provide better support and use faster
rendering engines including exploitation of rasterops built into
the chips and/or the Pentium II and Pentium III and K6 chips. The
Xfree versions tend to provide the basic translations from Xlib to
hardware in the most cost/effective manner.
If you really need real-time 3D rendering, you should probably spring
for an Indy or an Ultra. If you just want some fast graphics for KDE,
Xfree provides some pretty good drivers.
> Linux will NEVER succeed in the common
> marketplace until it can LOSE THE
> HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST!!
Actually, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and 2000 all have
hardware compatibility lists. Windows 3.1 doesn't support most of
the AGP and 32 bit drivers either. Windows 98 doesn't support VLB,
and Win2K wont support smaller drives, older video, and ISA IDE cards.
It may be possible to install Windows 2000 on a 486 VLB machine, but
it is specifically below the minimum requirements for that system.
> PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HCLs!!!
That's true. Most people, about 90% of them, would really rather
have a configured systetm right out of the box, with the configuration
work done by the OEM. Microsoft contracts of 1997, 1998, and 1999
didn't allow OEMs to provide configuration services. Most of the
2000 contracts have been loosened up because Microsoft isn't going
to drive 100 million new sales in Windows 2000 machines, and the
Windows 98 market is pretty much saturated already.
> THEY JUST WANT IT TO WORK!! MICROSOFT WORKS!! GET IT YET????
Of course it works. Before anyone touches a Microsoft machine,
before the machine is allowed to put the little Windows icon anywhere
on the box (including the keyboard) the entire system has to go through
a comprehensive set of certification tests. The sticker or plaque
lists the compatibilities.
I have a machin sitting next to me. The plaquard says:
Designed for
<windows logo>
Microsoft (R)
==============
Windows NT(R)
Windows(R)98
And the VA Linux box has a similar sticker that says:
Designed for
<linux logo>
Linux (R)
It's perfectly reasonable to expect OEMs to start selling machines
that sport both plaquards. In some cases, the motherboard comes
with a complimentary (included in the price) copy of Linux.
> Unix has been around for 30 years and
> has not "revolutionized" the computer world.
I guess you were living in a cave from 1994 to 1998. This thing
called the Internet, and the World Wide Web came out. It used
UNIX servers (now about 20 million of them), UNIX routers, UNIX
switches, UNIX firewalls, and UNIX file systems and databases to
serve about 300 million people using software originally developed
by UNIX programmers on UNIX machines. Cornel ported the UNIX version
to Windows, and Berkely team members merged the source trees to create
Mosaic, but the Internet is entirely a UNIX phenomenon.
In fact, UNIX HAS revolutionized the world. And not just the
computer world. Today, most advertizing gives a URL instead of
a phone number. Most business involves decisions based on information
provided by UNIX systems.
> It never will because the Unix world
> is run by cultists rather than
> business people.
Let's see. We have about 200 regular Linux advacates who post
pretty regularly. Most have provided their URLs and a bit
of digging indicates that we have a number of people from IBM,
Dell, Gateway, Compaq, numerous government agencies, a number
of insurance companies, banks, publishing companies, and other
Fortune 500 organizations. Most of them list experience ranging
from 5 to 20 years of experience, and many of them have been
UNIX administrators even before finding out about Linux.
Discussing the posts, most Linux advocates seem to be quite
familiar with very large enterprise size projects that demand
UNIX power, either in the form of Linux, Linux Clusters,
UNIX, or UNIX clusters.
Most of them seem to have a fair amount of "bloody up to the arms"
experience in large scale system design.
> What a JOKE!!
No, the joke is below:
> --
> Identity is of no importance
> or relevance. Get over it.
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux avocat, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
