Linux-Advocacy Digest #608, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 14:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: linux on a 486 (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Linux is awful (Kenny Pearce)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OS Sound OFF. (David M. Butler)
Re: Off Topic: Funny Light Bulb Joke: (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Whistler review. (Edward Rosten)
Re: Whistler review. (Edward Rosten)
Re: OS Sound OFF. ("Frizzle Fry")
Re: WINDOZE is awful (Adam Majer)
Re: OS Sound OFF. (The Ghost In The Machine)
re: windoze is awful (Adam Majer)
Re: WINDOZE is awful (Adam Majer)
Re: OS Sound OFF. (kiwiunixman)
Re: The Sixth Sense (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version (kiwiunixman)
Re: windoze is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 02 Dec 2000 18:16:44 GMT
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
>i have a 81 meg hard disk and only 2 megs of ram. i would get more ram
>but it is the old 30 pin kind for IBM type computers. dose anyone have
>this kind or know how to get it cheap?
That stuff I think is a PITA to get, and probably costs more than even the
generic old-style memory, which is already pricey. I would tell you to go to
junk stores-- many of them will have a back end full of old x86 boxes. Careful
selection can do you well. You may luck out and get a well-equipped 486 for
under 10USD (as I did). I've even seen 486s with 8M of RAM and half-gig hard
drives THROWN OUT.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: Kenny Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:13:46 -0800
Eric Meyer wrote:
> >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
>
> I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the like),
> but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
>
> Em
RedHat installation is really easy... at least as easy as win95/98
installation... I've never installed any other distros...
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:54:41 +0200
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> It is perfectly legal for two companies to sign exclusive contacts. Much
> of what we call "anti-trust" is quite legal under normal circumstances.
> This is not contradictory, but, in fact, a very reasonable response to a
> monopoly. It is sort of like a PID motion controller. As one company
> becomes so successful that it becomes virtually impossible to compete
> with it. "Feedback" must be applied to prevent runaway.
Not if I understnad the sherman act correctly. Then again, I don't
understand how the US handle as simple a procedure as election, so the legal
system is completly beyond me :)
It says nothing about monopols, just about limiting trade.
> The reasons for this are clear. If you have many venders with comparable
> chunks of the market, they will constantly be improving product and
> advancing state of the art. If you have one vendor which has full
> control over a market, then there is no competition and it is likely
> that state of the art will not improve.
Actually, that isn't quite true.
If the monopol makes money from selling stuff, it has to constantly improve
itself in order to compete with *itself*.
I won't argue that it's better in a non-monopol state. But even in a monopol
state, the state-of-the-art will improve.
> Now, as I understand it, it is not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is
> illegal to use the power of a monopoly to perpetuate it, or use a
> monopoly position in one industry to leverage another. For instance:
I've been saying it for soem time now.
<snip some examples>
Agreed, and I see your point.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 2 Dec 2000 20:08:33 +0200
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:i_9W5.36403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >
> <trimmed>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This link provides something more than two setting, in order
> > > > to provide a certain amount of security for NT. Is the
> > > > fellow crazy or you're oversimplifying a bit?
> > > >
> > > > http://bunbun.ais.vt.edu/work/securing_nt.html
> > >
> > > He's downright paranoid. But he's addressing more than just port 139
> which
> > > is what we are discussing. Interestingly I just put up a firewall
> system
> > > using most of his techniques just today.
> >
> > Means that you're paranoid too? ;-)
> > (Sorry I couldn't resist!)
>
> <GRIN>
>
> In security the question isn't: Am I being paranoid? but Am I being
> paranoid enough?
No, the question is:
Am I being paranoid enough in a useful way?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 2 Dec 2000 20:08:47 +0200
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:W1aW5.36434$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You forgot a few of steps!
> > > >
> > > > Disconnect data and power cables from floppy.
> > > > Disconnect data and power cables from CD-ROM
> > > > Boot and install password on BIOS
> > >
> > > Anyone with a screwdirver can remove this & restore floppy & CD-ROM
> > > It's a bit harder to conjour a modem or a network card with only a
> > > screwdriver :)
> > >
> > > > Now the only way to install software is using DEBUG <grin>.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I read that the NT/2000 Resource Kits are just loaded
> > > > with hacking tools.
> > >
> > > Hacking tools?
> >
> > I mean, "system administration" tools... nltest, getmac, netdom,
> > reg, regdmp, passprop, dumpel, pulist, soon, remote, shutdown, sc,
> > kill, auditpol, ipsecpol, and whoami.
> >
> > This doesn't count the additions in Win 2000, such as runas, secedit,
> > and dcpromo.
> >
> > And don't forget about tracert, nslookup, and netstat, and net.
> >
> > Microsoft is learning from UNIX, it seems. Lots of tools.
> > In any case, I have a hell of a lot of reading to do to catch up.
> >
> > You probably want to buy the second edition of "Hacking Exposed."
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, now we have a 10 steps, we need two more in order to make it
> > > official.
> >
> > Here's two more:
> >
> > Kill and bury the IT people who set up the machines.
> > Kill the people who buried these people.
>
> <joke>
>
> An easier solution would be a small charge activated by the power switch.
>
> </joke>
>
Why use a small one?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:12:55 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> [...]
> > Now I've found it.
> > Do you consider unix/linux to be a good OS?
> > Do you consider Netscape 6 to be a good browser?
> >
> > Apperantly, it suffers from exactly the same problem.
> > Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to *all*
users.
> > Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead of storing
them
> > in /home/<user>/netsacpe
>
> Not exactly the same case. It's just a suggested default
> path (unwise suggestion, I agree). I didn't like it, and I
> installed to /home/<user>/netscape. Didn't need to get an
> updated version, just entered the right path in place of the
> default. However I'm not sure it was necessary, because user
> specific data are kept in a .mozilla folder on my user home
> directory.
T. Max & I have been arguing about the HKLM & HKCU in the registry.
I complained that too many programmers don't adher to MS recommendations
about programming, and store user spesific data in the HKLM key in the
registry.
Doing this will work on 9x line, where the registry (as the file system) has
no security whatsoever. But if you try to use such a program on NT machine,
you get into a lot of problems, as the registry *does* have security and
permissions, so nobody except the Admin & System users can write to HKLM.
I fail to see any advantage in writing to HKLM user spesific data.
In fact, as many consider multi user programs a plus, I fail to see the
logic in building your own multi-user eviroment, when you already has one
for you.
Storing user spesific info in HKCU allows the programmer to turn an
otherwise single-user program into a multi-user program, without adding any
complication to the code, and without having *any* bad side affects.
In doing so, not only you improve your program, you also make it protable
between the 9x & NT lines, and make sure you won't have to change the code
when the 9x line would phase out in a few years.
You make sure your program is compatible with Windows, and you can get a
Designed for Windows logo to put on the box, which might be of some use in
PR.
Somehow, T. Max reached the conclustion that programmers that ignore all
those benefits are wise and that this was MS fault and a definitive proof
that their OS is "crapware".
He failed to bring a single reason, however frail that storing user spesific
info in HKLM can be of any advantage to the program.
I was trying to explain to him in terms he might be able to understand,
although, after his insistance about file extentions comlexity, I'm
beginning to doubt his knowledge of windows in particular and computers in
general.
BTW, my testing of netscape 6 aren't unusual, so it seems.
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-11/lw-11-netscape6.html
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:15:19 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9t_V5.28194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:BLIV5.25339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > >Just exactly how many WEEKS would it take to install 1500 apps on
a
> > > > windows box?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Exactly why my company uses pre-made images on CD. Problem now is
> > that
> > > > > Microsoft want paying twice. One for the OEM version, then once
> > > > > for the CD.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not even close. Read the License, you are allowed to make backups,
> > that's
> > > > all images are.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Microsoft has been insisting that you can't run that copy unless you
pay
> > the
> > > license fee for it. This made the trade rags a while ago - I'm not
> sure
> > > how it has been worked out since, but this is exactly the situation
> > > described.
> > > They claimed that buying an OEM copy with the machine did not give
> > > you a license to replace it with your stock in-house image even of
> > > exactly the same version of windows.
> > >
> >
> > Hadn't heard that one. Don't think they'll win in court over the wrong
> > serial number as long as proof of purchase is accounted for. Remote
> > Installation services and the automated setup configs allow, even
> recommend
> > using common media for multiple installations now.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2427307.html
In this article alone, they suggested three workarounds.
Not buying preinstalled windows is the best one, IMO.
Since you will delete the computer's content anyway, why pay twice?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:23:49 +0200
"Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Eric Meyer wrote:
>
> > >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
> >
> > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the
like),
> > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
> >
> > Em
>
> RedHat installation is really easy... at least as easy as win95/98
> installation... I've never installed any other distros...
Redhat custom install can be hard, because you need to repartition your HD.
Server install should be avoided at all cost, RedHat somehow figured out if
I choose to install a server, I have no need for information on my HDs. And
so it deletes them happily without even asking my opinion about it.
Never installed a workstation RH, can't say anything about it.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Sound OFF.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:31:28 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
Most liked:
Mandrake Linux 7.0, general home usage, a few games, tinkering with
hardware accellerated OpenGL.
Others:
Windows NT 4.0, used at work on web development and programming.
Windows '98, used at home, usually for games only.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Off Topic: Funny Light Bulb Joke:
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:31:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:12:25 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The license would work like this:
>
>One from the electricity supplier
>One for each person/animal who get benefit from it
>
>However, you would have to upgrade the power board with all Microsoft
>made fuses and components, otherwise the bulb will be buggy and
>unreliable, however, once you've upgraded the switch board, all the rest
>of the light bulbs in the house don't work as they donot understand the
>Microsoft Lightbuld Protocol (MLP), so you have to upgrade all of the
>light bulbs, by the time all this has been done, your switchboard has
>blown up as there are too many simultaneos lights on at any one time.
<grin> Good one. :-)
Don't forget the attempts to sell the real pricy Microsoft
Lamps(tm). These lamps depend on Microsoft Light Bulbs, and
can do everything from making coffee to managing one's social
affairs calendar to even starting the car in the morning and backing
it out of one's garage -- and occasionally into the neighbor's
garage's back wall....but that's easily fixed by turning off the
lamp switch and then turning it on again. Oh, wait...
Funny thing though -- they don't look quite right in the living room. :-)
And one can't replace the Microsoft Lightbulbs with just any old
light bulb; that wouldn't be kosher. (Or profitable.)
It gets even stranger when Microsoft sells a new batch of light bulbs.
The lamps, fuses, and switch board stop working. But wow, do they
look pretty in the new lamps; everyone will want one.
Also, the rumor is that one will have to pay a stipend each month to
the manufacturer, whether one wants to use the bulb or not; otherwise,
the bulb will start to only weakly illuminate the ceiling 30 days after
the last payment. If one wants to look at the floor to avoid tripping
over the bugs, pay up. :-)
There's also a rumor that Microsoft will start licensing SunLight(tm).
With SunLight(tm), one doesn't need the bulb; one simply pays a set
fee (above and beyond a monthly maintenance stipend, of course) whenever
one wants light, and a window shade opens somewhere in the house.
(They don't specify where in the ads.) Once done with the light, the
shade closes.
They're still working out the bugs, though -- I think they're having a
problem with the Earth's non-transparency, but my understanding is they
have a workaround. Maybe. I think it involves the Moon; they might
call it MoonLight(tm), which would be a SunLight(tm) add-on. You didn't
hear it here, of course.
The original Microsoft Lamps would of course serve as a tertiary backup,
but would only work if both SunLight(tm) and MoonLight(tm) weren't working.
Strangely, many people are beginning to look at Linux LED Nite Lights,
Fluorescent Lights, and Flash Lights, and FreeBSD Halogen Bulbs.
I wonder why?
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>Tom Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> How about people who post about how if M$ made lightbulbs, they would
>>> have a pretty pattern on the surface but would stop working until you
>>> switched them off and on again?
>>
>>
>> Or would require a separate liscense for each person walking through the
>> room.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tom Wilson
>> Go home Al....
>> Game over, man!
>>
>>
>>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 77 days, 14:06, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:36:43 +0000
> For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be as good
> from win2k as win2k was from NT.
That would make it getting somewhere useful, but still has a long way to
go.
Is it more like UNIX than 2K (2K is more like UNIX than NT4 and NT4 is
more like UNIX than NT3.5.1)?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:37:45 +0000
mark wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Hauck wrote:
> >On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 06:05:25 GMT, Matthew Soltysiak
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> >[whistler will]
> >
> >>> require a 1Ghz processor and 512MB RAM just so that it can run a decent
> >>> level of responsiveness due to all the hairy-fairy addons a gizmo's
> >>> Microsoft has added to the OS (which most people don't really need).
> >
> >>I have a p3 500...128 meg ram...runs fine...
> >
> >So...I guess you think that's a small machine? What was the man saying
> >about bloatware?
>
> Sh*t - all this just for the OS. What happens when you try to
> *do* something...
Simple: it will crash.
> Mark
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Frizzle Fry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Sound OFF.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:26:56 -0600
Reply-To: "Frizzle Fry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dumping RH 7.0 as they have dumbed the system up too much for me. Currently
reviewing Mandrake 7.2 and Debian 2.2.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Everybody who reads this, sound off with your OS please.
> The one your using or like the most.
>
> Then the others you use follow.
>
> Using Debian 2.3 Woody
>
> Others None.
>
> Thanks
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:40:29 -0600
From: Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: WINDOZE is awful
> For Bill is a jealous CEO and will abide no other OS before him. And his
> minions shall smite all others from the land of heads, cylinders, and
> sectors as they shall find them. And the mouths of the elders shall be
> bound so no one shall be able to cry out "Foul Monopoly" in the land of
> marketing, though the bankrupted widows and orphans of the slain shall
> have no relief. But behold! The High shall be made Low. From out of the
> Light, mighty Deamons and Penguins appear. They come to pour scented
> balms upon the wounds of the afflicted. And to bind these wounds whilst
> asking naught in return but admonish, "Go ye likewise and do unto
> others."
> - Amen -
Amen!
> Once you get all your OSes sorted out, go get xosl (the free eXtended Op
> System Loader) and use it to boot all the systems you have. See:
> http://www.xosl.org
> It's a lot cooler and slicker interface than the loaders for FreeBSD and
> Linux. And it keeps that legacy Redmond system in check as well.
Well, ok but there is no Linux way to compile this. The makefile is not
G++ complient :( Couldn't there just be a regular text interface
available instead of all the gui? That would be much easier to port and
it wouldn't lose anything. Something like cfdisk? [linux partitioning
thingy]
- Adam
--
...... SPAMER NOTICE .......
ALL spamer shall will be tracked down
and spamed.
-- A. Majer's spam policy
Sec. 1 sub 5 para 19c
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: OS Sound OFF.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:41:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:27:58 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Everybody who reads this, sound off with your OS please.
>The one your using or like the most.
>
>Then the others you use follow.
>
>Using Debian 2.3 Woody
>
>Others None.
>
>Thanks
>
>Charlie
Redhat 6.0, planning to upgrade at some point to Debian (potato).
Redhat 6.2, at work.
Redhat 6.0/Sparc, although it mostly just sits there. (But then, isn't
that what a good OS is supposed to do? :-) )
Solaris (through ssh), various versions.
HP/UX 9.05 (at work).
NT 4.0 at work. (It works, but ...)
Win95 (on a very very VERY rare occasion -- see .sig).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 77 days, 14:29, running Linux.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:48:38 -0600
From: Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: re: windoze is awful
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> NT & installing hardware go along quite easily with words like "hellspawn"
> and "WTF!!!"
> Try 2000, if it offered nothing else to top NT, it would still be worth
> going to it *just* for this reason alone.
Just to add to windoze bashing ,win2k proff. is suppose to be the _MOST_
stable windoze ever released by M$. Well, :) it crashes about every
30min when running unstable software. I never thought that an OS should
be affected by the user software that it runs - Linux _never_ dies on me
like that [running 3 yrs now and zero crashes :-]
- Adam
--
...... SPAMER NOTICE .......
ALL spamer shall will be tracked down
and spamed.
-- A. Majer's spam policy
Sec. 1 sub 5 para 19c
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:54:53 -0600
From: Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: WINDOZE is awful
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Adam Majer wrote:
>
> > Then if you want 95 and 2000 and linux and dos on the same system (what
> > I have :), win2k will again overwirte MBR of the A disk without asking
> > you.. And dos will not start at all unless it is on first partition of the
> > first disk.... You can't put lilo to MBR or otherwise you'll loose all of
> > the boot information for Windoze when you install lilo again.
>
> Funny, I have LILO in the MBR. It boots both Windows 98 SE and Linux just
> fine. What are you doing wrong?
>
nothing really. It is just that if you install lilo to MBR, Windoze will
overwrite it when you install it. Then you try to put linux back there.
ok. But then if you install 2k, well, you can't boot 95. AGGH! :(
Maybe you can help me a bit, I have Linux on hda3 with that the start
partition. Win95 on hda1 and Win2k on hdb1. But Win2k overwrote the
bootloar on MBR on hda. So now, to boot 95 I have to select MBR on hda
to start, that starts the win2k loader, and in that loader then boots
95. How can I move the 2k loader to the hdb1? So I can boot different
OSes directly from lilo.
Also, any way to hide partitions in linux? [using lilo or related free
linux stuff]
Thanks in advance,
Adam
----
...... SPAMER NOTICE .......
ALL spamer shall will be tracked down
and spamed.
-- A. Majer's spam policy
Sec. 1 sub 5 para 19c
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Sound OFF.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:01:47 GMT
Fuck around computer: Win98
Workstation: SuSE Linux Pro 7
Others: None
Future OS: SGI O2 W/ IRIX 6.5.10m
kiwiunixman
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Everybody who reads this, sound off with your OS please.
> The one your using or like the most.
>
> Then the others you use follow.
>
> Using Debian 2.3 Woody
>
> Others None.
>
> Thanks
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:04:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:40 +0200
<905d3m$m8f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:46:29
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
>01:45:18
>> >
>> >> >I know what made me use IE, and it wasn't product bundling.
>> >> >It was IE (version 4 and upward) being superior from Netscape (4.XX,
>I'm
>> >> >downloading 6 right now)
>> >>
>> >> So it was the technical tying, rather than the actual bundled
>> >> distribution, which is why you use IE?
>> >
>> >What technical tying?
>>
>> MS started tying IE to Windows back in 1995. Didn't you know?
>
>I know, IE 2
>Did anybody used that?
>
>You've not answered my question, what technical tying made me switch to IE
>on the 4 versions.
>
I think what he meant is that IE 4 started integrating itself into Windows,
replacing what was already there. I remember that rather well,
actually; a beta of IE 4 launched apps with a *single* click on
the desktop -- the final version went back to double -- and replaced
quite a few DLLs that looked like they were part of the system, not
part of IE 3, during install. Unfortunately, I didn't bother to save
the list of DLLs replaced on my Win95 system.
It was slick -- but it sure looks like it could be prone to abuse
if misused. Suppose IE 6 decided to wipe out WordPerfect DLLs?
Or maybe it doesn't like Unreal Tournament today.
One wonders.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 77 days, 14:54, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:06:40 GMT
Or is it because no-one in their right mind would purchase a $15,000
Workstation, then try to run a third rate OS on top of it. What would
you rather be running, IRIX or NT? Fuck, I'd choose IRIX,1 came with the
machine, 2 more reliable, 3 There are applications written for it, 4 its
not mickysoft.
kiwiunixman
<snip>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:54:32 +0200
"Adam Majer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > NT & installing hardware go along quite easily with words like
"hellspawn"
> > and "WTF!!!"
> > Try 2000, if it offered nothing else to top NT, it would still be worth
> > going to it *just* for this reason alone.
>
>
> Just to add to windoze bashing ,win2k proff. is suppose to be the _MOST_
> stable windoze ever released by M$. Well, :) it crashes about every
> 30min when running unstable software. I never thought that an OS should
> be affected by the user software that it runs - Linux _never_ dies on me
> like that [running 3 yrs now and zero crashes :-]
A> Win 2K Pro. is certainly not supposed to be the most stable windows ever
released by MS. For this, look at Win2K DataCenter.
B> Did you checked with support? Do you've correct, WQL, drivers? What
software do you run?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
