Linux-Advocacy Digest #209, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Frank Miles)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Linux Experience (Tom)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (No Name)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (No Name)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Ingemar
Lundin")
New Linux Install ("James M. Luongo")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Computer and memory (No Name)
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:16:02 -0000
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:01:11 -0700, Jason N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8q61qj$9r2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
>> E.g. as I type this in I am doing a save-file every few lines, to lose
>> less incase 'freeze, 3 finger salute' occurs.
>>
>> I mean isn't this supposed to be the legacy system that dominates the
>> world's computers? How could they not have conquered this freeze problem?
>> I mean I hear it is the common experience of all users, not just of those
>> who've added extra wacky software.
>> --
>> www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." �n����
>> Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
>>
>>
>
>It's simply software bugs and poor design. Enough said. The next version of
>windows is supposesd to fix all this.
We've heard THAT one before...
--
guru, n:
A computer owner who can read the manual.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:11:55 GMT
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:01:11 -0700, Jason N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>It's simply software bugs and poor design. Enough said. The next version of
>windows is supposesd to fix all this.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! <cough!> <CHOKE!>
chyeah. right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Miles)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: 19 Sep 2000 15:00:26 GMT
In article <8q63l4$r6s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>:> Sure...just put it in a shutdown script.
>:> But...with unix..the utility of shutting down machines is nil.
>
>: It is. It's called saving energy. Unless you have teams working 24h/24h
>: 7 days a week.
>
>That calculation is moot. You lose more energy in the lower lifetime of
>the disks (it takes a LOT of energy to make one hard disk). Disks fail
>when left nonspinning, and when spun up. (This is mostly true of
>IDE disks, which are not made to high standards in general, and which
>tend strongly to have bearing mechanisms which seize when they
>aren't used ...).
And the indisputably sound source of these statistics can be found....?
I've heard this tale repeated fairly often, but never substantiated
by anything but anecdote.
>Just keep the machine on ... it shouldn't use much energy when the
>monitor's off. Besides, my machine is always doing things when I'm
>not there ...
Actually, there are some wearout mechanisms with cathodes in CRTs and
in HV supplies for cycling power on these also. Unfortunately I don't
know of any statistics to resolve this question, either.
Anybody have a lead on real data regarding these?
-frank
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: 19 Sep 2000 15:20:21 GMT
In comp.unix.admin Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. It would do so if it had been submitted and failed.
> For example, you probably have never had a DNA exam to prove you
> are your father's son. By your logic, you are not your father's son.
Well of course he's his father's son. I suspect you mean "the son of the
person you assume to be your father" ;-)
--
John M Dow
Director, Systems - dowcarter, Edinburgh, Scotland
"Mixing Kittens and Asps is most definitely a recipe for larger Asps."
Aquarion, in C.S.S.
------------------------------
From: Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:20:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LILO is really on the Linux partition, even though you "install"
> it on the boot block of your primary drive. The mbr is simply a
> pointer to the location of the LILO program.
Thank you for clarifying that, Rich. I was under the mistaken
impression that LILO was installed *in* the MBR of the boot drive.
> If you have trashed the drive on which your Linux partition
HEY! Don't blame ME! **I** didn't trash it! ;-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 15:18:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:33:48 -0600, Jason Bowen said:
>spiralx wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > spiralx wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > In case you haven't noticed, the most technologically advanced
>> > > > societies are producing the LEAST amount of pollution, environmental
>> > > > waste, etc.
>> > >
>> > > Apart from America, which produces 25% of the world's pollution and yet
>> has
>> > > only 5% of its population. Maybe you need to rethink your assumptions
>> there,
>> > > because you seem to have the wrong end of the stick.
>> >
>> > Yes, but you must realize that a lot of the pollution is produced
>> > making products which are EXPORTED to other countries. Therefore,
>> > THEY get the goodies without having the pollution counted on
>> > their tally sheets.
>>
>> Errm, no, America produces so much pollution because of it's policies of
>> rampant capitalism which makes the government afraid to impose any kind of
>> environmental regulations. Hence America's unwillingness to enter into any
>> kind of international agreements on reducing pollution - the government is
>> afraid of the backlash from its industrial sector.
>
>Capitalism is the best system. Unfourtunately you can't always count on
>people to act in their best interest so the best policy is to try to
>make it in their best interest to act in responsible way. Take your
>communist/socialist dogma somewhere else. The old USSR has some of the
>most polluted land on earth. Tell me about the evils of capitalism
>again. It's all about people needing to act responsibly.
Capitlaism is bad when it comes to the environment.
Socialism was worst.
That does not mean capitalism is good for the environment.
As the recent protests in Europe against fuel prices show, people
will do nothing about the environment unless:
a) They are forced to do something.
b) They are dying grasping for air, in which case it does not matter
any more, does it?
And the previous poster was not spewing dogma, just hard truths: when
the US does not like an international agreement they stay clear (never mind
if the other 199 nations agree on it: International Court of Justice,
treaties about green house effect gasses, UNESCO come quickly to my mind).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: 19 Sep 2000 15:26:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:35:33 -0500, Tim Kelley said:
>Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>>
>> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:8q75ls$e0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Win2K took about 30 mins on a P-III 800, 256 MB, with 2 reboots. I guess
>> if
>> > you can't count past 1, you might lose count...
>>
>> pure BS Stuart ...Windows 2000 takes at least an hour to install...(1 hour
>> and 5 minutes to be exact, on my machine, p3 733, 256 MB, geforce gts,
>> sblive platinum)
>
>... but you don't meet the minimum hardware requirements (at
>least a p-800)
Holly cow! A P3 at 733MHz with 256 MB RAM is not enough!
FUnny HOw I have been doing productive work for the last 5 years in my
P166 (it was 133MHz, but what the heck!, I saw a cheapo P166 in an
auction 4 months ago)!
Did I say it has Linux?
Cheerios.
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Sep 2000 09:44:09 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry R) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote in
>
> >These are built into the GUI system, not the kernel. It's the GUI's
> >responsibility to implement this stuff. That's why you can't "execute"
> >a word document from dos and have it open word.
>
> Actually, I just tried that and it does work (surprise ;-0 )
> C:\docs>test.doc opened up word with the file so it can "execute" a
> doc file from a DOS window. (I know it isn't the same as booting DOS
> and doing this)
>
> But I still hate WinNT.
It doesn't work on my NT Server 4.0 (runnung under VMware).
Just so you know.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:56:10 GMT
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8q7svp$nm8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HpKx5.232$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:8q7q18$t7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:qEIx5.218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > news:8q7j0n$4dm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:M7Hx5.216$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > > > news:8q75ls$e0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Win2K took about 30 mins on a P-III 800, 256 MB, with 2
reboots.
> > I
> > > > > guess
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > you can't count past 1, you might lose count...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pure BS Stuart ...Windows 2000 takes at least an hour to
> > install...(1
> > > > hour
> > > > > > and 5 minutes to be exact, on my machine, p3 733, 256 MB,
geforce
> > gts,
> > > > > > sblive platinum)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pure BS, or just different from what you experienced? Windows
2000
> > > takes
> > > > a
> > > > > varying length of time to install - minimum install time would
seem
> to
> > > be
> > > > > about 25 minutes.
> > > >
> > > > welll, you didnt perhaps include time for formatting?
> > > > most os setups is kind of bitchy about that...they would like to
have
> a
> > > > formatted partition to install on...:-)
> > > >
> > > Nope, Windows 2000 does a quick (very quick) format as NTFS. Much
like
> > > doing a quick format from inside Windows NT 4.0.
> >
> > are you kidding me or what?
> >
> > quick format? what the fuck is that? win2ksetup doesnt even have the
> > capability to do a quick format (on a empty disk)
> > UNLIKE linux for example...how are you kidding??
>
> Run setup on a blank disk, and choose to format as NTFS. It takes about
20
> seconds max to format. Try it and see, you might be surprised.
>
let me get this straight Stuart...?
i have installed Windows 2000 on at least 25 machines so far, with cd-rom
boot of course, but about tree times using the four boot disketts,
so -exactly *when* and *how* -using these diskettes, are you presented with
the option of doing a *quick* format?
/IL
>
------------------------------
From: "James M. Luongo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: New Linux Install
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:51:45 -0400
I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
sector, whatever). I think it was 1023, but I'm not sure. Is this
true? Help!
--
========================
James M. Luongo x1427
Draper Laboratory Room 4207
========================
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: 19 Sep 2000 15:57:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Frank Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <8q63l4$r6s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.misc Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
:>:> Sure...just put it in a shutdown script.
:>:> But...with unix..the utility of shutting down machines is nil.
:>: It is. It's called saving energy. Unless you have teams working 24h/24h
:>: 7 days a week.
:>That calculation is moot. You lose more energy in the lower lifetime of
:>the disks (it takes a LOT of energy to make one hard disk). Disks fail
:>when left nonspinning, and when spun up. (This is mostly true of
:>IDE disks, which are not made to high standards in general, and which
:>tend strongly to have bearing mechanisms which seize when they
:>aren't used ...).
: And the indisputably sound source of these statistics can be found....?
>From various engineers working at various hardware producers. *I've* had
the story firsthand, but for you it'll be second hand, coming from me (I
really should keep the authorative posts!). There was an excellent and
extended discussion on comp.os.blah.hardware about a year ago. As I
recall the main point was the bearing lubrication: IDE disks didn't have
the design elements to keep the lubrication even when left standing,
leading to interesting results when restarted.
: I've heard this tale repeated fairly often, but never substantiated
: by anything but anecdote.
I've never heard it repeated at all, and you can be very sure that I am
watching for it! Hey, I have a research contract with a Western Digital
subsidiary? Does that make me authoratative? And I am also professor of
hardware design ... though not that kind of hardware! What do you
consider authorative?
:>Just keep the machine on ... it shouldn't use much energy when the
:>monitor's off. Besides, my machine is always doing things when I'm
:>not there ...
: Actually, there are some wearout mechanisms with cathodes in CRTs and
The monitor should be in low power. I don't use it when not there.
In fact mine is always off. I use the portable to log in when I come
home. That's an lcd 1024x768 screen.
: in HV supplies for cycling power on these also. Unfortunately I don't
: know of any statistics to resolve this question, either.
: Anybody have a lead on real data regarding these?
The manufacturers data sheets? They give some stats on mean cycle time
to failure. I get between 5-15% catastrophic IDE disk failures per year
(from memory). I have hundreds of IDE disks. I have relatively few
scsi disks to comapre with (10's). But they seem to wear better. The
problem is that three were wiped out by overheat in the same box
(cooling failed, shouldn't havbe been like that anyway) and two were
killed by a dud adaptec 2940uw controller. That kind of thing clusters
more, statistically. IDE disks tend to be one per machine.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 19 Sep 2000 16:00:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:52:59 GMT, Chad Myers said:
>
>"No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8q7lj3$jht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:44:29 GMT, Chad Myers said:
>> >Low Earth Orbit satellites don't experience as much of this as
>> >high-orbit satellites do.
>> >
>> >Teledisic www.teledesic.com is building a global LEOS network
>> >that will provide low-latency broadband internet access globally.
>> >
>> >Now here's an example of a company that's DOING SOMETHING to
>> >solve a problem. Not ironically, it's an American company...
>>
>>
>> A company that without the favor and openess of other countries to
>> market its services would find impossible to sell a global
>> link.
>
>
>Teledesic has already gained the approval of all the major communications
>control companies. So far, third world countries are excited about this
>technology as it will bring easily accessible, reasonably priced Internet
>access to their countries which don't have any type of cable or telephone
>infrastructure to build upon, or have remote citizens with now direct
>land-line link of any sorts.
>
>They've gained US FCC acceptance, the ITU's acceptance. They've also
>had several foreign investors including a Saudi gentleman that
>invested US $200 million
Which proves my intial point. I would like to see what happens if a
similar non American company tried to do the same in the US. They would
be denied permission to trade in the US for the same motive I'll
quote for the 3rd time: a Telecom company has to be owned by US citizens.
No wonder 3rd world countries are excited, but when those same 3rd
world countries try to sell their products in the US they find all kind
of protectionist measures, which has been my point in this thread: the
US wants its companies welcomed everywhere but makes it impossible
in certain, very profitable sectors, almost impossible for foreign
companies to get a slice from the action. Telecomms, media and
air travel are a few of them.
>
>> In the other hand the US has protectionist policies against
>> foreign Telecom/Media Companies. As an example token, Mr Robert
>> Murdoch had to become an American citizen to expand his
>> empire insto the US, but that is not an option for each
>> non American company which in most cases will not have
>> an individual shareholder calling all the shots (and anyway
>> only somebody like Mr Murdoch would give up his/her
>> nationality in the name of bussiness).
>
>What does this have to do with anything?
If you want to build a cable from Europe to the US you need to
have the posibility of marketting the service both ways. A non US
company can't do it.
>
>Or are you just spouting off BS to make yourself feel better
>about not living in the U.S.?
Just answer this question: can a non US Telecomm stablish itself
in the US and make bussiness?
I know I can get AT&T, MCI or Sprint services in many countries.
I have never seen any BT,DT or Telefonica service in the US.
Simple facts, and we will perhaps get close to the truth.
>
>-Chad
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:08:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
wrote:
>>I did not bother with tarball.
>>
>>Got it?
>
> However, someone did.
>
>>
>>Good.
>
> That severely undermines the notion that "bad linux documentation"
> was the cause of this person's worries.
>
Okay - what more steps should the user have taken?
>From XFree86's web site she found that TrueType support was introduced in
version 4. She knew she had 3.3.6. There was no hint that RedHat's
distribution of XFree86 wasn't standard, and she had no reason to suspect
otherwise. Therefore, TrueType font support needs to be added. Seems
reasonable to me.
>From the recommended TT servers site, she found only a tarball - no RPM's. She
also found documentation on how to install the server. There were no
distribution-specific notes.
She followed the directions precisely, and it all went wrong.
Enlighten me. How could she have avoided this? Or, more, appropriately, where
should she have started to distrust the information she found?
The ongoing problem with linux - everybody wants to do things slightly
differently.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
