Linux-Advocacy Digest #266, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (lyttlec)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Gary Hallock)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (lyttlec)
Re: How low can they go...?
so what? ("Philo")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (lyttlec)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (lyttlec)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux in the enterprise - okay, enterprises OR how to avoid the microsoft tax (mark)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (mark)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
("PistolGrip")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:01:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You think that's bad, in tech school (early 80's) we each had to build
> a simple Z80 computer. Programming this computer was done via direct
> machine-code (of course). The really bad part was that loading the
> program into memory consisted of flipping switches on a 8-position DIP
> switch for each byte, followed by a press of a button to load that
> byte in. Talk about stupid!
You obviously don't work in marketting. I recall raising my eyebrows
when IMSAI advertised this as a feature ("no complicated I/O") on a home
PC (as I recall, 8008-based.)
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:19:49 -0300
El vie, 22 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>FM wrote:
>> required in programming is minimal, but when a guy
>> is showing complete inability to understand
>> abstract concepts, you can often attribute that to
>> the lack of basic mathematical skills.
>
>ROTFLMAO. You have no idea how wide your shot went.
>I was weaned on mathematics, I grew up on it and
>I could leave you reeling in any discussion on the
>topics of physics, mathematics, philosophy, politics,
>sociology and psychology; basically anything and
>everything theoretical. And my ability to understand
>abstract concepts is *superlative*.
<humour>
You are also the most humble sentient entity to ever have walked the face of
the universe!
You know, when someone starts saying things like that, it's almost guaranteed
that he has a small penis. The next step is buying a Porsche. (I bet this
paragraph can make Richard go whole hog and explain the forum just how nice and
large a penis he has ;-)
</humour>
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:18:42 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 21 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Because it's better if they change it? Because the system would be
> >simpler, more elegant, more beautiful *and* more powerful?
>
> Says who? And if he knows so much, why doesn't he do it?
Says me.
And if who knows so much?
> >"I like it" isn't a rational argument for anything. You've just implicitly
> >asked "Why should programmers be rational?"
>
> You are asking unpaid programmers to follow management without
> questioning? You are insane.
No, I'm asking that they stop writing code without doing explicit
architectural design first. And if they can't do such design then
let someone else do it.
> >me. For example, it is known that a certain waist to hip ratio is
> >considered
> >most appealing across all cultures. Different cultures rationalize it in
> I'm sure you can explain Gwynneth Paltrow and Calista Flockhart being
> considered sexy, too.
ARE THEY???? I am *shocked* and appalled!!
> >That tribe is only able to do this because it's already hard-wired into
> >humans that long necks are beautiful.
>
> What's the connection between long necks and lower lips? You
> are mixing up the tribes.
You're right, I mixed up the tribes.
Well, anyways; large lips are estrogen markers and so signs
of femininity.
> BTW: a XVIth century spanish poem (yes, it WAS serious):
>
> Two things must the woman have red, the lips and the ears
> Two things must have white, the cheeks and the hands
> Two things must have big, the head and the shoulders
> Two things must have small, the nose and the breast
Keey in mind that people in earlier times were into pedophilia
in a big way.
> I'm sure it applies 100% to Spain today ;-)
People today don't sexually abuse their children nearly as
much as our ancestors did. Abuse causes people's emotions
to go haywire and sexual abuse causes people's sexuality to
go haywire (with exaggeration of some features and total
suppression of others).
> Sorry, but I found no way to make the translation rhyme!
>
> >It's noteworthy that I've never heard of a culture that considers
> >warts to be beautiful. The thing about the 'beauty myth' is it's not
> >a myth!
>
> Not warts, but moles are indeed considered beautiful in some
> cultures.
>
> [snip about 350 lines of blah that's not even about women!]
A tragedy, I know.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:23:45 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> I couldn't find 'em.
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
>
Reading the dumps "NOTE: This application is for demonstartion in
conjunction with the <insert name> application and is not part of the
flight software". The screen shots shown are part of a large
demonstration of the system staged for groundhogs.
> (click on a few of the links/screenshots on the left)
>
> They even use Windows (NT apparently) to control
> life-support systems including warning and
> monitoring systems:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/cautwarn.html
>
> Here's an example of one of the three network diagrams
> they have for the space shuttle and space station:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/106.LAN.nominal.html
>
> At least a few of them are windows, but, judging by the
> software it says the no-named-OS computers are running,
> it appears they are Windows as well.
>
> No mention of Linux, MacOS, or *laf* OS/2
>
> Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
>
>From <http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/> :"The Payload and
General Support Computer (PGSC) is a service used to support Shuttle and
Payload on-orbit operations. The primary functions are command and
display of non-critical payloads and additional crew information
services. "
Doesn't sound exactly like they are trusting their lives to the PGSC.
The PGSC computers are for crew convience only. Every thing there is
repeated from some other primary computer on the bus. Probably used
Win95 because that is the only OS that some of the hardware
manufacturers support.
> -Chad
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:23:03 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> > Gee, do some programmer beat you as a child? Where does all this hatred for
> > programmers come from?
>
> Unix is a piece of crap. For no better reason than Inertia, it will
> continue to dominate for decades. Do I need a better reason?
>
> It doesn't help that software interfaces are written in such a
> way that they can only be described as "utter assholes" if you
> were to label them with human characteristics. So my anger stems
> from the fact that I have to deal with utter assholes on a daily
> basis. Seem reasonable to you?
You are exhibiting typical bigotry. Applying your limited experience to a
group.
Gary
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:34:03 GMT
Peter Ammon wrote:
>
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has appeared in
> > several Apple Computer television commercials? The one that's on the
> > Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays big bucks in hollywood to
> > get it's computers in "cool" movies like Independence Day?
>
> I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
>
> -Peter
Get the "Killer Tomato" series movies. you gotta watch them all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:34:48 -0000
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:50:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:52:44 -0400
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>>>But you are correct; there are a number of obstacles in the establishment
>>>of a viable operating system -- the one who gets there first usually
>>>gets most of the business. Consider that DOS is a variant of CP/M,
>>>which might be considered the first OS available on a modern PC
>>>(specifically, the Osborne), as opposed to a console unit such
>>>as, say, an IBM 4341 or VAX 11/780, which weren't all that portable. :-)
>>
>>So the one that gets there first....?
>
>... gets a good chunk of the business. This is not necessarily
>the best for society, of course -- consider, for example, the
>68000 microprocessor, a better design, at least from a programmer's
>standpoint, than the 8086 and 8088. Yet the 8088 was the one adopted
>by IBM. Why? Because it was first.
No, it was available then. I might have been cheaper however.
There's also this nonsense idea I occasionally hear about the
8088 being cheaper to use due to 8-bit perhipheral chips
(nonsense because the 68K's are quite capable of using 8-bit
peripheral chips).
>
>And now we're more or less stuck with it. :-/
This is more a side effect of bad MS engineering than
anything else. Nearly every other commonly known OS
has not suffered this problem (VMS, Unix, NextStep, MacOS).
[deletia]
--
The way I understand it, the Russians are sort of a combination of evil and
incompetence... sort of like the Post Office with tanks.
-- Emo Philips
If two people love each other, there can be no happy end to it.
-- Ernest Hemingway
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: so what?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:37:22 -0500
well folks...
i seem to have seen a few hostile posts here over the last few days...
now it is a good thing to have discussions etc. as to who knows the most...
which operating system is best and so on...
but don't you think we should be talking about more important things.?.
for example...i dare anyone to post an example of anything more nerdy and
useless than what i have done recently.
booted to linux command prompt...
then opened dosemu ...
then from within the dos emulation mode i fired up my cp/m
emulator...
it worked but now what do i do?
so rather than have heated arguements here...has anyone ever done something
useful like me?
Philo
ps : have a sense of humor ...ok?
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:41:19 GMT
Timberwoof wrote:
>
> In article <UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> > pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> > I couldn't find 'em.
> >
> > http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
> >
> <snip>
>
> I can understand this decision. Intel hardware is available in lots of
> configurations, including aerospace-certified versions. (I presume this
> is so. I had heard that no version of Intel's processors were certified
> for mission-critical aerospace applications, but either this has changed
> since then or someone's bending the rules.)
>
The applications shown weren't mission critical. Just some convenience
stuff. Makes life easier, but could be done without. Does anyone know if
any of this was ever used?
> And unlike Linux, Windows operating system software actually has
> responsible, professional quality assurance behind it.
>
> It would be interesting to find out what modifications they make to the
> OS they load on these computers. What systems do they disable? Do they
> have that stupid paper clip popping up during landing to ask whether
> Internet Explorer should be the default browser?
>
I can see it now. The Space Shuttle is about to crash. The pilot has
about 40 ms to complete a complex calculation. The paper clip pops up
and obscures a critical portion of the screen. Everything stops until
the pilot clicks it and it does its animation routine. Yeah.
> --
> Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
> Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
> "The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:45:33 GMT
Tyler Mitchell wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Yeah, right - the average computer user can't work an ftp client unless it
> >looks *exactly* like Windows explorer, so I'm sure they'll get along just
> >*grand* with Linux.
> Exactly. Linux, *BSD, and Unix is not for everybody.
No, they are not. "Linux, *BSD" are for hobbyists, tinkerers and
students while UNIX systems are for most everything but the desktop
or the extreme high end.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:46:07 GMT
Keith Peterson wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Majka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
> >That's funny. In the time I've been here I have YET to
> >see windows used in any real-time application. UNIX
> >is everywhere (SGI and Sun primarily), some RTOSs such
> >as VxWorks, LynxOS, and PowerMAX_OS, a suprising number
> >of Macs are around, and the usual Windows box when
> >someone needs a generic computer.
>
> While I prefer UNIX as the platform of choice for realtime, I guess someone
> should point out that many realtime systems DO run on Windows NT.
>
> http://www.gensym.com/expert_operations/STORIES/ashland.htm
>
> Gensym's G2 environment for Windows and for UNIX and a couple other platforms)
> is marketed for Realtime applications. I doubt they would continue to invest
> in development for NT if nobody was buying it.
It only quotes using NT for *development* not realtime control. The
systems mentioned are SCADA and not realtime. SCADA are not hard
realtime, but could be considered soft realtime (just to avoid pointless
arguments). NT is not usable for any hard realtime system. Normal Linux
isn't either, but RTLinux is
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:50:47 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee writes:
>>> I don't mind trollers,
>> Why not?
Note: no response.
>>> and I don't mind morons so much as long as they are entertaining.
>> So, we can add you to the list of people actually encouraging such
>> behavior and therefore contributing to the overall decline of USENET.
> The morons are going to be present with our without
> encouragement.
Is that your justification for saying that you don't mind them, as long
as they are entertaining, which usually means they are taking pot shots
at someone else?
> I don't encourage them, I accept them.
Indeed, you don't mind them at all, as long as they are entertaining!
> Are morons any less human just because they are morons?
Irrelevant, given that the issue is whether you should encourage them
or not.
> I think if you look through history you will find that the
> majority of people act like morons at some point.
Are we witnessing such an instance with your posting?
> But we can be entertained by their inane actions.
So, you don't mind who they take pot shots at, as long as you find
it entertaining.
> I have yet to really be entertained by your repititious stupidity.
What alleged "repititious [sic] stupidity", Nathaniel? What makes you
think that I'm even trying to entertain you?
> And that was my point.
You want to be entertained? Shall I take pot shots at you to see if
you find them as entertaining as the ones you don't mind?
>>> But saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over
>>> and over and over and over... do you get the idea yet?
>> The real question is whether you get the idea.
> I'm starting to. You're an idiot that gets a bigger thrill out of
> being an idiot than you do out of intelligent conversation.
How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't tried to engage in an
intelligent conversation with me yet.
> It's almost an interesting case study in and of itself.
Watching you has been, Nathaniel.
> People fascinated with their own stupidity really amaze me.
Do you amaze yourself?
> Unfortunately, it is common enough that it no longer holds my
> interest.
Unless you find it "entertaining", right?
> *PLONK!*
Yet another person who feels it necessary to consume bandwidth to make
a grand exit.
> Bye, bye. Enjoy your stupid blathering.
What alleged "stupid blathering", Nathaniel?
> Try not to drool on your keyboard.
Hasn't happened yet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Linux in the enterprise - okay, enterprises OR how to avoid the microsoft tax
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:44:39 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know Linux has been performing sterling service for many years in my
company. This URL provides a really useful summary of companies which have
spotted how to avoid the Microsoft tax, the BSOD, the three-finger salute,
DLL hell - the lot!
Try this:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-15-001-06-NW-BZ-LF
For information - Hill House Hammond insure my bike and even paid up when
a to-be-nameless person knocked me off with a U-turn.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:46:04 +0100
In article <8q88hp$24q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>In article <8q807l$2hnb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 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" ;-)
>
>Hmmm... this is hard to say right, isn't it? ;-)
>
>How about "you assume your father is also your biological
>father" ?
Well, generally I do, anyway. :)
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:39:37 -0300
El vie, 22 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El jue, 21 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Because it's better if they change it? Because the system would be
>> >simpler, more elegant, more beautiful *and* more powerful?
>>
>> Says who? And if he knows so much, why doesn't he do it?
>
>Says me.
>
>And if who knows so much?
If you know so much, why don't you do it?
>> >"I like it" isn't a rational argument for anything. You've just implicitly
>> >asked "Why should programmers be rational?"
>>
>> You are asking unpaid programmers to follow management without
>> questioning? You are insane.
>
>No, I'm asking that they stop writing code without doing explicit
>architectural design first.
No, thanks.
>And if they can't do such design then let someone else do it.
Noone is not letting someone do it. Yet noone is doing it.
Go to http://www.sourceforge.net, start a free software design project,
give away designs, and ask people to code against them. Good luck.
>> >me. For example, it is known that a certain waist to hip ratio is
>> >considered
>> >most appealing across all cultures. Different cultures rationalize it in
>
>> I'm sure you can explain Gwynneth Paltrow and Calista Flockhart being
>> considered sexy, too.
>
>ARE THEY???? I am *shocked* and appalled!!
Yup.
>> >That tribe is only able to do this because it's already hard-wired into
>> >humans that long necks are beautiful.
>>
>> What's the connection between long necks and lower lips? You
>> are mixing up the tribes.
>
>You're right, I mixed up the tribes.
>
>Well, anyways; large lips are estrogen markers and so signs
>of femininity.
That doesn't explain the men doing it, does it? Yet there's an
tribe up the mazon who does it.
>> BTW: a XVIth century spanish poem (yes, it WAS serious):
>>
>> Two things must the woman have red, the lips and the ears
>> Two things must have white, the cheeks and the hands
>> Two things must have big, the head and the shoulders
>> Two things must have small, the nose and the breast
>
>Keey in mind that people in earlier times were into pedophilia
>in a big way.
If you died at 28, marrying at 14 starts looking like a good
idea.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the beauty standards do change.
[snip]
>> [snip about 350 lines of blah that's not even about women!]
>
>A tragedy, I know.
Indeed.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:03:24 GMT
Sam Morris writes:
> My god, Dave, pick an address to deflect spam and keep it!
I have, Sam.
> Stop changing it every five minutes!
I haven't, Sam.
> Killfiling you is really hard!
You got suckered by Moul, Sam. They're not my postings, but Moul's.
Unfortunately, you just gave him a reason to continue his charade,
because you just provided proof that he's succeeding in misleading
people.
------------------------------
From: "PistolGrip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:09:52 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qdcar$7op$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8qcfr5$m4e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > However, the format that is performed during Windows NT/95/9x setup is
> > traditionally (very) slow, which is remedied (IME) in Windows 2000.
Setup
> > now performs a quick format as NTFS, which it didn't do before.
> Regardless
> > of my incorrect terminology, I suspect I am still comparing apples with
> > apples, as I doubt IL is doing a low level format of the drive either.
>
> I am sure that you realize the reason for the greater speed and that the
> price for the speed is reliability. The formatting (using Microsoft's
> terminology) performed by the Windows NT/9x installation process scan the
> partition for bad sectors and locked them out inaddition to writing the
> filesystem to the partition. To scan for bad sectors it is required to
read
> and possibly write every sector in the partition one or more times,
> depending on how extensive the scan is. The formatting performed by the
> Windows 2000 installation process just writes the filesystem to the
> partition and does not scan for bad sectors. It just assumes that all
> sectors are good without verifing the fact
I believe you have an option when installing / formatting an existing drive.
When installing on a freshly partitioned drive it's as slow as always.
Dave
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
