Linux-Advocacy Digest #289, Volume #30 Sat, 18 Nov 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: OS stability ("Les Mikesell")
wahoo! I'm running now (rich)
Re: Windows SUX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("res07e1h")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux Sux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Steve Mading)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Alessandro Rubini's very interesting article on system calls... (Steve Mading)
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ("Quantum Leaper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:53:55 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v4351$9rn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Floppy disk, email, whatever. The shortcut encodes information like
the
> > > computer name, path to the file etc.
> > >
> > > It's very handy.
> >
> > Only to someone with the same GUI that understands it.
>
> Well, duh. Links are only useful to someone with a filesystem that
> understands them.
No, they work fine in any number of cross-platform way. File
servers, ftp servers, etc. all follow symlinks.
> > Pre-existing
> > programs, and other OS's seeing the network-shared disk won't
> > understand it as they do with symlinks.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by pre-existing programs not
> "understanding" it, but networked shared disks aren't meant to - it's
meant
> to be used at the shell level.
Why? At the shell level you can just select what you meant. The point
of a link is that all programs can use them.
> > > And links lock you into a certain filesystem, so ?
> >
> > No, all good filesystems support links and symlinks.
>
> And do they retain the same characteristics just copied with something
like
> "cp" from one to the other ? How about over a network ?
That depends on the option you use. Most programs don't know that
links are different than the thing they reference which is the whole
point of having them, so if you copy them you normally get a
copy of the target. However, some programs do know and can
copy and move them. Dump/restore, tar, etc. obviously have to
know, cp with the -d (don't dereference) option, rsync, and some
others. Whether they work when copied depends on the target
still being in the right place - an absolute path (starting with slash)
will work anywhere on the same machine, but on another machine
it would depend on the target being in the same place. Likewise
relative links depend on the target being in the right relative place.
> > > Shortcuts are a *User Interface* feature and a damn useful one.
> >
> > The difference is that they force you to use the particular interface
> > that supports them - in typical Microsoft style.
>
> So do .kdelnks and the like, which is what you should be comparing
shortcuts
> to.
And their usefullness is clearly as limited.
> > When symlinks
> > were added into the filesystems all existing programs automatically
> > could use their advantages.
>
> I've yet to bump into a Win32 program that couldn't make use of a
shortcut.
Yes, clearly limited.
> > All good operating systems refer to their objects through names in the
> > file system. /dev/modem and /dev/cdrom are typical generic names
> > usable by applications that generally exist in the filesystem as
symlinks
> > to the specific device you want for the applications' defaults. In
unix,
> > when you solve one problem it works the same for everything.
>
> Printers ? URLs ? Networked computers ? Shares on networked computers ?
> Being able to transport these things between machines just by emailing or
> copying to a floppy disk ? How do symlinks do these things ?
URLs are a relatively new concept that depend on programs to interpret
them, but symlinks appear to be files and devices to any program that
knows how to open a file or device (and on unix these appear the same).
Devices are always your 'own' devices - the magic of opening a device
is accessing the major/minor driver numbers known to your own kernel,
but files can be accessed from anywhere - that is the target may be a
network mounted directory or file.
> In any event your whole comparison is flawed, because youa re comparing a
> filesystem feature with a shell feature. Both methods have advantages the
> other does not.
Agreed, but given symlinks most of the reasons to have shortcuts go away.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:55:48 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> > You may get a reasonable "whois without whois" by going to:
> >
> > http://whois.networksolutions.com/
> >
> > and using their "whois" link. It apparently runs whois, host
> > and other *nix utilities for you and show you the result. It
> > should even work with IE, if you can see the page before it
> > crashes. ;-)
>
> It doesn't provide the cute little license you get from
> Network Solutions whenever you do this whois query from the
> command line:
>
> "By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data
> only for ... [lawful purposes and not for spam]"
>
But you get this:
NOTICE: Access to Network Solutions' WHOIS information is provided to
assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration
record in NSI's registrar database. The data in this record is provided
by NSI for informational purposes only, and NSI does not guarantee its
accuracy.
Compilation, repackaging, dissemination, or other use of the WHOIS
database in its entirety, or of a substantial portion thereof, is not
allowed without NSI's prior written permission. By submitting this
query, you agree to abide by this policy.
All rights reserved.
Question: if I quote one answer on the NG, is it "dissemination"?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:08:20 GMT
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v2v1j$526$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8v13kn$ji9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you have a problem with the points I have been trying to make let's
> > here them! My claim based on netcraft is Linux and Unix are more
> stable
> > than W2K.
>
> Subjective.
Mine isn't. I just had a Linux box hit a year of uptime running a busy
webserver - and have never been able to do that with any flavor
of windows.
$ Uptime
8:55pm up 366 days, 2:17, 1 user, load average: 0.16, 0.17, 0.09
(OK, it isn't busy now - peak time is 10 AM weekdays where the
load will be a bit over 2 - right for a dual-cpu machine.)
> That a Linux box is not insecure JUST because it has been up
> > for a year (good security practices keep it secure).
>
> Which you can't prove.
How many outstanding bugs are in:
$ uname -a
Linux 2.2.12-29.4smp #1 SMP Tue Oct 26 13:25:32 PDT 1999 i686 unknown
This is a VALinux box, reloaded with the latest from their ftp server
the day after it arrived, turned on in production and still going a year
later. I suppose I will update it now - I was just holding out to hit
a year.
> >That the poor
> > showing of W2K is not based on the instalation of SP1.
>
> Which you can't prove.
Mine have all been rebooted to install SP1 (and some other reasons,
like changing their names, loading software that said to reboot, etc.).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rich)
Subject: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:11:01 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So I am slowly putting my RH 7.0 machine back together again -- after a
very nasty experience with a bad hard disk and a flakey video card.
Glitches: Specifying memory addresses for the NIC. It would be much
better if there were some way of doing this automagically, but even if
you have to do it by hand, a quick prompt that you should be using 0x
style memory addresses would be a Good Thing. Sigh.
Nice things: I put the CD ROM in and it automounted. How cool is that?
I'm also dancing in the virtual aisle because I finally, finally got
Samba installed and configured. And after probably 2 months of
infrequent work (say, 1 or two hours a week,) and about 10 hours of
concentrated effort, I'm beginning now to really understand this little
box.
The NT server is now dark, waiting for the moment when it will become
the next Linux server on the network. I can't wait.
--
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet.
The Internet: Designed for Unix.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:20:14 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GviR5.15776
> > Windows doesn't crash 3 times per day, and it runs a great many games
> > without crashing. IE is more stable than Netscape - and is quite stable
> > overall. Windows has several alternate desktops available. Several
> > alternative office packages are available. Windows supports hardware
> > better than linux does, and runs monitors at any frequency the hardware
> > supports.
>
> Ah yes, monitor refresh rates. Windows had this amazing problem - it would
> forget the type of my monitor. Then it would revert to "Default monitor".
> Then I'd get 60Hz refresh! Took me ages to figure that one out.
>
> As to why it kept falling back to "Default" it's a fault in the registry,
> it has a tendency to forget things...
The registry doesn't "forget" things. It's a binary file. how could it
"remember" it's old setting? Answer: It can't. Thus something is setting
it to default. It could be that your monitor isn't sending the proper
signals to auto-detect it. You should try turning off the autodetect and
selecting your monitor manually.
> > There are some terrific editors out there (like UltraEdit for instance),
> > you simply have to pay for them. Some, particularly java ones, are
> > cross-platform and work fine on Windows.
>
> The basic editor Notepad is limited to 64k of text. WordPad isn't but
takes
> a _long_ time to load a big file. Even the new DOS editor does it better
> and it can support around a megabyte of text!
Not under NT/2000. Notepad can load any size file.
> > The only point you make with any validity is that it doesn't support
> > processors other than Intel x86-line ones - unless you mean NT, which
> > supports several others.
>
> Er, RISC supported has been dropped, Alpha support has been dropped... so
> which processors are we talking about here?
IA-64. You can get the beta today if you're a member of the MSDN. It's out
there, and working.
IA-64 is one step beyond RISC; EPIC. Explicitly Parallel Instruction
Computing.
Besides, even Apple is considering dropping PowerPC and going Intel.
------------------------------
From: "res07e1h" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:22:00 GMT
> > By all counts you have a killer system, especially in the multimedia
> > area. Why would you want to cripple it by running Linux?
I have a killer machine running WinME, and spend more time rebooting
because of crashes, oe errors, etc, etc, etc
> Yes, I've spent many a happy hour screwing around trying to configure
> a Win98 or NT system.
See above, took 4 times to install ME and run "smooth" (loose term)
> > Do yourself a favor, and save yourself a lot of headaches and run
> > Windows ME on your high end system.
>
See above
> > If you really want to learn Linux (not a bad idea) buy a junker p166
> > and run Linux on that.
> > Crap hardware and Linsux are a match made in heaven.
>
Yea Linux runs so well on my low end system I am going to "waste" my high
end system with a stable OS
Bear
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:28:19 -0600
"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Since we don't know how netcraft is retrieving the uptime value,
one
> > > > must
> > > > > > assume that it's a command sent to the web server to retrieve
it. The
> > > > web
> > > > > > server is merely returning the value of GetTickCount() which has
a 49.7
> > > > day
> > > > > > maximum value.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that why the Starbucks NT server was being rebooted every day,
> > > > > Eric? Because NT stays up for 49 days? ;)
> > > >
> > > > Starbucks is Win2k, not NT4.
> > > >
> Now they are; but 6 months ago they were running NT for at least a
> year. The NT box was being rebooted on a daily basis for at least one
> year straight. Look at the chart.
The chart is meaningless. Again, Netcraft says categorically that NT4 SP4,
5 and 6 are either completley incapable of providing uptime information or
give completely inaccurate results. Since SP4 includes the Y2k patches, it
seems likely that Starbucks could have only been running SP5, since SP4 and
SP6 don't give uptime information at all. And SP5 gives random uptime
results (not even counting the 49.7 day problem). Thus, you can't draw any
conclusions from the NT4 graph other than NT4's uptime is inaccurate.
> > > > And without inside knowledge, we don't know what the problem is
there.
> > > > Maybe they have power problems. Maybe they had some hardware
failures.
> > > > Maybe they've been experimenting with beta software. Who knows.
>
> Are you grasping at straws here, Eric? Thought so. ;)
You know the reason?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:41:16 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > For the short
> > time that someone is a novice they simply need something capable
> > of acting as a menu system that lets them start the applications they
> > need. Any of the X window managers will provide that,
>
> They do not only need a menu system. They also need simple means of
> installing their apps, *new* hardware and also the supporting apps
> themselves.
In a business situation, Windows users always have a support team
and are rarely even allowed to try such things themselves.
> > and it
> > was common to provide character based menus even back in the
> > days of DOS and unix-before-X.
>
> Well, there's more to the overall ease of use of the OS on a superficial
> level, than the mere navigating of menus, isn't it? :=)
No, most novices just start apps and use them.
> We're also neglecting that one has to be application centric and not OS
> centric when speaking of the type of users you're referring to. All these
> average users need is to be able to *easily* install the applications
> they want to, run them in piece and have the hardware they want to use
> work. They need a painless means to add hardware. It's been a rocky ride
> with Win9x but it worked for many.
It worked because of the enforced pre-install on most hardware. Users
never saw the problems of installing hardware themselves.
> I don't know about you, but if I want to achieve task foo, I'll choose
> the easiest way to do it. Why choose the more difficult way. Isn't that
> why you use Linux/UNIX to do what you do? :=)
Yes, but most people have only used one and thus can't make a
valid comparison.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:23:54 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:04:44 -0800, "Keldon Warlord"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >here is what I've got, maybe you can recognize my problem better than
me....
> >
> > Your problem is that you are trying to run Linux.
> >
> > By all counts you have a killer system, especially in the multimedia
> > area. Why would you want to cripple it by running Linux?
>
>
> You are insane.
>
> An early pentium running Linux has more power than the late LoseDOS box.
>
I'll agree with that!
I'm at work, logged into my LinuxBox at home via dial-up PPP. I'm running
multiple telnet connections. One is compiling a kernel, One is in Emacs
where I'm editing a Perl script, Another is compiling KDE2.0 source RPMS. At
the same time, I'm sending more KDE2.0 RPMS via ftp, AND checking out the
Perl script in IE explorer. At the same time, the local login is merrily
running screensavers.
The Linux Box doing all of this...
ABit SM5a Socket 7 MBoard w/ Non MMX Pentium 166
64 Megs of Ram.
Cheap External 56k Zoom Modem
It NEVER misses a beat.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 18 Nov 2000 04:29:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And apache doesn't take advantage of anything on Unix?
You mean other than the fact that Unix spawns processes quickly
enough that there's no point in wasting time coding for threads
like IIS has to?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:37:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:39:24 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Can I install Windows 98 SE on a 486 50MHz? Oops! No. It needs to be
66MHz
> >at least! Can I install Linux on it? Yes I can...
>
> Actually you can. There is a setup switch to override the clock speed
> check.
>
> setup.exe /nm should do the trick.
>
> claire
And the net result would be worth it?
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: 18 Nov 2000 04:35:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Can I copy (just with cp, or by dragging it to a disk in, say, KDE) a link
: from any filesystem that supports links to any other filesystem that
: supports links and have the link still work ? How about ftping it ?
Another thing just occurred to me about this. Does this ability to
retain links to moved files work *only* when you use Windows Explorer
to move the target file? If you had a program that did it for you,
instead of dragging it with the mouse, or if you used the prompt
"rename" command, would the link remain intact?
If "No" -> then this illustrates the weakness of putting such a thing
at highest level (an application like Explorer).
If "Yes" -> then this means that these shortcuts are *not* features
of the GUI as you have been claiming, they tie into something more
low-level than that.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:56:15 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> > "By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data
> > only for ... [lawful purposes and not for spam]"
>
> But you get this:
>
> NOTICE: Access to Network Solutions' WHOIS information is provided to
> assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration
> record in NSI's registrar database. The data in this record is provided
> by NSI for informational purposes only, and NSI does not guarantee its
> accuracy.
> Compilation, repackaging, dissemination, or other use of the WHOIS
> database in its entirety, or of a substantial portion thereof, is not
> allowed without NSI's prior written permission. By submitting this
> query, you agree to abide by this policy.
> All rights reserved.
>
> Question: if I quote one answer on the NG, is it "dissemination"?
You said "semination", huh huh heh heh. And you are in big trouble
for publishing the proprietary information of Network Solutions.
Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!
--
Click here to cast your vote for [] Gore [] Buchanan [] Bush []
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:56:47 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> >But there's more. The same holds true for applications. It's simply
> >unthinkable that an application wishing to open a documents parses a 2
> >MB file in order to find out what to do. So the brilliant MS brains
> >have come out with the worst possible solution.
>
> If you are stating here, that the OS and applications must
> "search" for anything in the registry, then I submit that it
> is you, sir, who is grossly ignorant.
>
> First of all, the very notion of "searching" for anything
> in the registry outside of using the REGEDIT.EXE program
> is simply absurd. There is no searching whatsoever, for
> that would negate the very reason for the registry's being.
You're both wrong. Searches must be done (the key names
must be converted to memory/disk addresses), but they are
probably indexed or hashed for speed, as is common in
databases.
However, I have to state categorically that I am only surmising,
and the NG reader would do well to consult a proper Windoze
system text.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:00:07 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> > Isn't Windows already painful enough ?
Even the latest Windoze, 2000 Pro (ignoring the server versions)
are slothful. Ironic that the OS claimed to be the most
user-friendly is slower for the user than the OS claimed to
be user-unfriendly.
--
Click here to cast your vote for [] Gates [] Buchanan [] Torvalds []
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Alessandro Rubini's very interesting article on system calls...
Date: 18 Nov 2000 04:50:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: So, it's clear that he would not be a proponent of
: placing something such as the X protocol in kernel
: space. That's fine. But he still makes the point
: that kernel-space calls are indeed faster. He also
: points out that stability is one of the sacrifices,
: but in WindowsNT, there is no stability sacrificed,
I was with you up until this point. Why is no stability
sacrificed in WindowsNT here? The only way that would
make sense would be if he's trying to say that since
Windows ties all the applications to the graphics screen, it
makes no difference if just the GUI dies or if the whole
kernel dies - either way you're stuck. Of course, this
attitude can only be applied to *desktop* interactive-only
systems, not those that might be running long-term jobs or
those that might be running server-type tasks. At best,
that could be used as an argument for putting the GDI in
the kernel for Windoes 95/98/Me, but not for doing it in
NT/2000.
: as there was no advantage to having the GDI in a
: separate module, which, again, makes our (NT users')
: point.
[anti-linux-advocate strawman statements snipped.]
Here's a free clue: Those who are rudest are also most vocal.
This is true in *any* group. Assuming that all linux advocates
are losers who whine is like assuming all Christians are fully
behind the 700 club.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:08:10 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quantum Leaper wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Quantum Leaper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Marc Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:52:24 GMT, Quantum Leaper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Milton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:04 +1000, "steve erntner"
> > > > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >how hard is it to get drivers for aztech sound cards???
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In Linux, it's relatively simple.
> > > > > >> http://lhd.zdnet.com/db/searchproduct.cgi?_catid=12
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >Linux does seem to support alot of discontinued products.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >all i want are win2k drivers for em...but do they exist?
> > > > > >nooooooooooooooooo
> > > > > >> >im about to break down and cry
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Don't use second-rate OS's and you won't be easily
disappointed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >He shouldn't have bought from a second rate sound card company,
> > Aztech
> > > > went
> > > > > >out of business over a year ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * alert! alert! Double-standard detected! *
> > > > >
> > > > > You know, one of the points about Windows *.* that is always
harped
> > upon
> > > > > is how great driver support happens to be for peripherals. That
> > > > > vendors make Windows drivers first and everyone else gets sloppy
> > > > > seconds, if anything at all.
> > > > >
> > > > If you want a good legacy driver support than use Win9x not Win2K.
> > Also if
> > > > you read my other message I give him a suggestion on a driver to
TRY,
> > which
> > > > was a Sound Blaster 16 driver. NT or 2K doesn't have the greatest
> > driver
> > > > support but it a hell of alot more stable than Win9x.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm got an ATI Rage Fury Pro that's less than a year old. Still
> > doesn't
> > > > > have non-beta 3D Win2k drivers. And the beta level drivers are
very
> > buggy.
> > > > >
> > > > Who fault is that? Microsofts or ATI (who writes the driver)?
> > >
> > > It really doesn't matter.
> > >
> > Your right, considering Window 2K does support Aztech sound cards, I
> > checked.
> >
> > > It just puts the lie to the claim that Microsoft has the drivers
> > > for everything...and the other lie that Microsoft drivers are better
> > > than drivers for competing OS's.
> > >
> > Considering Windows 2K does have driver for Aztech sound cards....
>
> Top borrow a favorie line from Losedows advocates: Who needs that?
>
I guess ANSWERING the person question was the wrong way to go.... Your
right who need Linux! BTW like I said before Aztech sounds are just alittle
bit better than Zoltrax sound card, which my friend couldn't get to work
under ANY OS, Windows, Linux and others.
BTW I believe every OS has it place.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
