Linux-Advocacy Digest #562, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 13:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: linux on a 486 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: linux on a 486 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: linux on a 486 (Ian Davey)
Re: linux on a 486 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:53:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
No-Spam wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:47:02 -0800, Micah Higgs
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with only
> > a floppy drive?
>
> Sure, I have it on my 386/sx25 mhz router right now.
>
> It boots from the floppy drive, and thats all it needs.
>
> On the other hand you may mean, 'can I install, Linux
> with only a floppy drive' ?
> The answer is yes to that as well.You can d/l a minimal
> floppy dist of Debian (www.debian.org) on 8 floppies
> (2.0.36 kernel), that will run on a 120 meg hdd,
> thats what Ive got on my spare which is an old 486/50.
Yes, but what can be done with that minimal install?
Can you do more than edit files using vi?
Frankly, Linux is a disk and memory hog when it comes to
the basic system requirements to be able to do anything
*with* Linux once you get it installed. Sure, you can
install it on just about anything, but doing something
with an install on "just about anything" can be difficult.
> You can do just about anything with Linux
No, the correct phrase is "you can install Linux on
just about anything. Whether you can do anything
with Linux on that system is another matter."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:05:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Micah Higgs wrote:
> >
> > is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with
> > only a floppy drive?
>
> You do need 16 meg RAM. Perhaps "need" is too
> strong, but things slow down a lot.
"Need" is too strong. Linux uses the hardware better
than DOS, so ironically even at 4MB or 8MB you will
see a speed increase when you switch from DOS to Linux.
Add a 1x or 2x physical memory swap partition, and
you're doing fine.
> I recommend loading a minimum system from floppies,
> and downloading the rest over a network if possible.
The problem may be that Micah doesn't have the hard
drive space for the full system, and possibly not even
a second desktop to "download from". One needs to
understand that not everyone has a full gig of hard
drive space, or even half that, and not everyone has a
second computer with a CDROM drive and/or network card.
I installed my first Linux computer by floppy-installing
Slackware onto a 486/50 using floppies generated by a
desktop at my college. The lab monitors would have been
very annoyed had I plugged my first Linux computer into
their network to finish the install. :)
Something to think about: a complete workstation install
of RedHat 5.2 (base system, development, X Windows, etc.)
only takes a little less than 500MB of hard drive space,
if you can borrow a CDROM drive from someone or have a
network card and an already-functional desktop computer.
> I first ran Linux on a 33mhz 386 and just recently
> retired my last 486.
I still run Slackware 7.1 on a 486/66 with 16MB of RAM
and an 800MB hard drive. I wasn't able to full install,
but I did manage to get nearly everything including
a base development, networking, and X-Window setup.
Of course, that machine is only one of three Linux
systems on my home network, the other two being
a 100Mhz Pentium and a 200Mhz AMD-something (forget at
the moment).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:14:11 GMT
In article <9060lb$9q1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The answer is yes to that as well.You can d/l a minimal
>> floppy dist of Debian (www.debian.org) on 8 floppies
>> (2.0.36 kernel), that will run on a 120 meg hdd,
>> thats what Ive got on my spare which is an old 486/50.
>
>Yes, but what can be done with that minimal install?
>Can you do more than edit files using vi?
I installed a copy of Linux (Slackware) in a 120Mb partition and was able to
use X-Windows with fvwm2, an email package, browser etc. and had a perfectly
useable system with space to spare.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:07:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Micah Higgs wrote:
> >
> > is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with only a floppy drive?
>
> Not sure if you mean install it from floppy or use one of the
> super mini distros that only have 1 or 2 floppies. (the router
> on a disk thing).
Given the rather non-technical language, I would greatly
suspect that he wants as much of a full install as possible.
People who want single or two-floppy complete Linux systems
tend to ask for them by name, as well as the router on a
disk system. They also tend to ask for them on a NG less
devoted to advocating Linux for the masses, such as
comp.os.linux.hardware or comp.os.linux.setup.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:39:37 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:39:39 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>| Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:10:23 -0500;
>| >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>| >
>| >| Sure, you can. You'd be wrong, but you can say it.
>| >
>| >You are wrong on that.
>|
>| Now, doesn't is it seem just a *tad* stupid to snip the remarks we're
>| referring to in this exchange?
>| ------------------------------
>| >> But since in many people's opinion W2K is not at all superior to OS/2,
>| ------------------------------
>|
>| Now, am I still wrong? Or are you presuming that every user of W2K
>| agrees with that it is superior to OS/2, presuming they used OS/2?
>
>Not at all.
>
>Uhm, you say that many in the know that are in your acquaintance prefer
>OS/2 to Win2k.
No, you added the "in the known that are in your acquaintance" part.
>I said the opposite and you said that I'm wrong. I'm saying that you are
>wrong in saying that I'm wrong. I'm not saying that your initial
>statement was wrong.
It was your statement, that W2K is technically superior to OS/2, which
is wrong. Everything else followed from that as you tried desperately
to weasel out from under this fabrication.
[...]
>I am incapable of seeing OS/2 on simple technical terms ignoring it's
>largely uselessness to most, just as how you're unable to look at Win2k
>and ignore the fact that it's a MS product.
It is my ability to ignore the fact that W2K is an MS product which
allows me to recognize how pathetically crappy it is as an OS product.
Outside of monopoly crapware, you are indeed incapable of seeing OS/2 in
technical terms. So here we have the situation where you can't tell
your ass from a whole in the ground, and wish to start talking about the
technical comparison of the two.
>| in an discussion of OSes, rather than computers. This is not a
>| religious argument, easily convoluted by empty points, like whether a
>| lot of people already use the system.
>
>All these are interrelated and it's probably my signal to move on. Why
>discuss OS/2 anyway ..... etc.
I have a little suggestion for you, Curtis. Until you stop this
passive-aggressive/argument from ignorance/defense of illegal behavior
crud you've been posting, the signal you should use as a sign to move on
is when your hands approach the keyboard.
>| It is a realistic argument,
>| intended to discuss, at this point, technical merits of OSes. And other
>| than Win32 lock-in, Windows has nothing to show for it on technical
>| merits.
>
>From a plain user perspective, I can't agree when using Win2k and having
>used OS/2.
That's because you don't know the difference between a plain user's
perspective and yourself.
> I'm not a software/OS developer or producer. I've never been
>involved with that sort of thing. I'm just a plain user and reader. If I
>stick my nose into arguments on development please take that into
>perspective and shoot me down as you like since it's they are opinions
>formulated from reading and speaking with developers/ software
>producers. I did a lot of that in my OS/2 days since it's not unusual to
>have long conversations with OS/2 software developers or have
>discussions with them on newsgroups. Not advocacy ones. :=)
I am not a software/OS developer or producer. I have never been
involved in that sort of thing. I have a dozen years experience
learning how plain users learn PCs, and how to teach them. My
experience and expertise extends far outside your individual
perspective.
>Anyway, I can only assess both systems from a usability perspective.
I would suggest, to the contrary, that you are unable to assess either
system from a usability perspective. All *you* can do is pick which one
you "like better".
[....]
>Good design only matters to me as far as it impacts on my use of the OS.
Is that "as far as it impacts on my use" or "as far as I am aware that
it impacts on my use"? A crucial difference.
>I may be blind to some design problems with Win2k but I have to
>experience the problems before I'll concede to them.
You are blind to all design problems, as you haven't enough knowledge or
experience to differentiate between a design problem and a simple
glitch, or a user error. (Note: when a user error recurs routinely, it
is generally because of either a design problem or a glitch, since the
software's job is not to set up a bunch of trip-wires and blame the user
when they find one.)
>Many say that OS/2
>is more stable than WinNT/2k.
AFAIK, only Winidiots even suggest this is not a well known fact.
>But after 2 years using each, ie, OS/2 and
>WinNT/2k, I cannot agree. This is just NOT my experience. In fact my
>experience is the opposite and I'm not alone on this.
Perhaps not. But you are, whether you know it or not, as unable to
distinguish between stability of an OS and lack of failures as you are
between design failures, glitches, or user error, in many cases. Sure,
the blatant or representative example of each might seem easy to
distinguish, but in all honesty, you haven't shown enough technical
understanding to know when the call needs to be made, let alone how to
make one reliably.
>Many complain that the Windows registry is prone to corruption and is
>fragile. I'm the town geek and help many with their machines.
So are we. Why do you think we complain about the registry? Do you
honestly think we just pull it out of the air, arbitrarily deciding that
it will bear our animus?
>I help all
>my colleagues and family with their machines. I've personally never seen
>a corrupted registry. Why should I believe then that this registry
>corruption issue is as common as it's made out to be?
Well, see, I'm not asking you to believe that the Psychic Friends
Network can change your life, or whether Fung Shui can provide harmony
and reduce stress.
In point of fact, I don't think that anyone has actually said that
registry "corruption issues" are common. Merely that they are not
uncommon. I don't even *care* if you believe this to be true. Just
don't pretend you can refute it simply because it doesn't *knowingly*
gibe with your personal experience.
>OTOH, in OS/2, I
>had an application called Unimaint which was integral to my maintaining
>my OS/2 system's smooth functioning. What this application did was to
>remove redundant entries from the OS/2 ini files. When I used a zip
>drive in OS/2, unimaint was even more important. OS/2 seemed to log all
>file paths in the ini files. You can imagine what will happen when you
>use a lot of zip disks and change their contents frequently. The system
>suddenly starts behaving funny, you run unimaint ini repair and you're
>back on track. Interestingly, I have never had to use any such registry
>maintenance software while using NT or Win2k yet they just work and work
>and work when I use them. <shrug> Be that as it may, it is also true
>that many OS/2 users had no such problems with their ini files. But not
>to worry, Unimaint was a smashing best seller in the OS/2 community and
>many found it indispensable for the same reasons I did.
>
>In my line of work, medicine, our practice is evidence based, simply
>because of the dangers of arm chair thinking and evaluating. We may look
>at a particular mode of therapy, examine the facts as we know it and
>come to the conclusion that it will not work, despite someone claiming
>success with it. We therefore do studies, and very often, much to our
>amazement, the results are totally contrary to our armchair predictions.
>Now, I know that medical issues are not the same as with computers, or
>let's say I think not, because the variables involved are more well
>known and elucidated. One can then better predict a potential problem.
>But isn't it possible that what seems like a questionable design may
>turn out to be a real world solution that works in the majority of
>situations? What's the point of saying that my OS uses a vulnerable
>registry when in fact it's extremely rare for this vulnerability to
>cause my system harm. Is this rare problem of concern in a user context
>as mine considering that I'm not running a mission critical server and
>that I do my backups?
What's the point of saying that smoking is bad for you, if not every
smoker dies of lung cancer?
>Someone makes the point that when X goes down, the whole Linux system
>doesn't. This quality doesn't really help me. I run a stand alone
>machine and if my entire machine locks up, it's just as annoying as if I
>were to be working and the entire GUI fails on me with me losing all my
>work in the apps that were open. If Win2k crashes less often than the
>X-server in Linux, then in my user context I prefer Win2k's stability.
>I could go on making similar points with other aspects of computer use
>and Windows problems but I think you should be getting my general point
>which is really what I want to bring across and not the specific issues
>which I merely gave as examples.
I will try to keep that in mind. Your general points aren't any more
solid than your specific ones, but I understand your remark. The reason
it matters if it is X or the OS that fails, even though it might well
seem just as grievous a failure, is it *isn't* as grievous a failure,
and therefore shows both how much more robust and reliable Unix is, and
how pathetic and crappy Windows is. How could it do that, seeing as how
both seemed to be just as grievous a failure? Well, because, because
they're *not* just as grievous a failure. In one, the OS crashed, in
the other, it didn't.
>| It occurs to me that your hopping back-and-forth between "not very
>| useful to most now" application barrier issues to technical merits of
>| the OS is not merely coincidence. But I don't mean to impugn your
>| integrity. Much.
>
>I don't take these discussions as seriously as you do.
I think you mean, simply, that you don't know as much about these topics
as I do. How seriously I may be taking the discussions is a guess on
your part, entirely.
>If I wish to
>change the angle to suit me, as most, including *you* do, then I'm sorry
>if that get's in your way. :=)
No, it gets in the way of a discussion when you keep jumping back and
forth from the application barrier to technical merits, without even a
clue that you're doing it, I'd wager. I'm sorry it shows you to be
technically inept, but there you go. Probably just a lack of experience
on your part. You'll learn. I hope.
>| >No, it hasn't escaped me that they were involved in *illegal*, not
>| >*criminal* activity at the time.
>|
>| Pardon, but you seem to be trying to draw some sort of distinction, as
>| between "unlawful" versus "illegal" behavior.
>
>No. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that not all illegal acts are
>deemed criminal acts.
This is not true. Not all illegal acts result in criminal
*convictions*, if that's what you mean.
>This is why there are civil matters and criminal
>matters dealt with in courts. Monopoly abuse is illegal but not
>considered a crime.
Is that why it is a felony?
>Criminal acts are punishable by doing time or the
>death penalty. AFAIK, Gates and his lackies are not up for doing time.
That's because they haven't been charged with anything. Their
"corporate person", Microsoft, has been charged. You are correct that
it is a civil trial, in which liability, rather than fines or
incarceration, is the result. That doesn't mean the acts which resulted
in the conviction are not criminal; merely that they aren't being
punished, but remedied.
>| It turns out that both
>| are "criminal", when executed knowingly, so your point is moot. Wake up
>| and smell the Java: Microsoft ripped you (and me) off, on purpose.
>
>Just an issue of terminology. Knowingly committing an illegal act
>doesn't always make you a criminal. It depends on the nature of the act.
>If I'm caught in a speed trap and given a ticket .. am I a criminal?
Technically? Yes. It is a crime to break the law, you see; anything
you have done which has broken the law is criminal activity, and you are
therefore a criminal. Now, are you trying to say that not all crimes
are as grievous as others? Or are you trying to say that Microsoft
didn't really do anything wrong?
>| [...]
>| >| Actually, I would say the only reason you ever used OS/2 is because you
>| >| weren't in the US.
>| >
>| >This is not true.
>|
>| And you know this because....
>
>Your argument in support of your presumption was that OS/2 is more
>popular in countries outside the US. This is simply not the case in my
>country.
I'm sorry, perhaps the thought didn't translate well. My argument is
that OS/2 is more popular in countries outside the US *than it is inside
the US*. Perhaps you thought I meant it is more popular than the
alternatives (monopoly crapware), which is not what I meant.
>| >| It was much more widely supported outside the
>| >| states, back before MS re-applied themselves to preventing competition
>| >| in foreign markets.
>| >
>| >This is true but doesn't make your initial presumption true.
>|
>| Nor does it make it false, oddly enough.
>
>You don't know enough to make that initial presumption. It was really a
>stab in the dark.
So I guess whenever I say something which is true, its just a
coincidence, eh? A 'stab in the dark', as opposed to knowledge?
>| >| >The algorithm I use to chose my OS is:
>| >| >
>| >| >1) First the OS must be stable and reliable. [...]
>| >|
>| >| In your experience, or in reality.
>| >
>| >In my experience. In a setting where experience with a particular OS
>| >seems to be in conflict, I make my own decision based on my own
>| >experience.
>|
>| "Reality" would be a better choice. If you limit your consideration to
>| your personal experience, you frankly are fucked. You haven't the time
>| or the knowledge to examine every alternative. Nobody does.
>
>To what degree do you have to examine three choices to make a reasonable
>decision.
The only possible answer to that question, I'm afraid, is "to a
reasonable degree."
>In fact, at this stage, I'm only interested in Linux as a
>potential alternative. I've already used OS/2 and it's not even an issue
>anymore. I have no urge to be locked into Apple's proprietary hardware.
>BeOS is just not in the equation.
So being locked into proprietary hardware is a bad thing, but being
locked into proprietary software, with a much worse reputation for
constant failure, is A-OK?
>| >| Because while your experience might
>| >| be that you had problems with OS/2,
>| >
>| >My problems with OS/2 were not unique to me.
>|
>| AFAIK, your "problems" with OS/2 were that it was excluded from the
>| market by a monopolist engaging in illegal, unlawful activity.
>
>Before meeting Win2k, yes. :=)
Now, of course, that's not a problem. You are what most people would
call a "sucker", Curtis. Good luck. You'll need it.
>| >| and that you haven't with W2K,
>| >
>| >This absence of OS/2 problems when using Win2k is not unique to my
>| >experience either. Not by a long shot.
>|
>| Well, maybe I'm wrong. Just what were these "OS/2 problems" you are
>| referring to?
>
>Well, I mentioned the ini file problems. The SIQ limitation was an
>annoyance that way too frequently led to unrecoverable lockups. I'd say
>it happened about once every 2-3weeks. At times, these lockups could be
>quite devastating. Process Commander, a third party app designed to deal
>with this problem, helped at times but not always. That's two third
>party applications I had to fork over to help make some OS/2 problems
>more bearable. And yet this was Nirvana compared to Win9x because the
>OS/2 applications were better and the OS/2 WPS was nice to use.
Well, I'd imagine you might have had a better experience, had
Microsoft's criminal activities not prevented free market competition
from improving your OS/2 experience.
>If I create or delete a partition while running OS/2, I have to be
>careful or else I'll get that 'can't find country.sys' error on bootup.
>No such problem with Win2k.
Well, it must clearly be a superior OS then. (There's something about
your stories that bring out the sarcasm in me, sorry.)
>OS/2's strengths which I never really used much was it's Win-OS/2 and
>DOS support. I did look into them a lot and was pretty amazed. The
>Win-OS/2 and DOS support is pretty useless to most nowadays.
Just about everything is pretty useless to most nowadays. That happens
when a monopoly prevents free market competition for more than a decade.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
