Linux-Advocacy Digest #650, Volume #30 Mon, 4 Dec 00 19:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: Windows review ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Linux is awful ("Paul D. Smith")
Re: windoze is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Whistler review. ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Commentary on a Windows REinstallation last night ("Olivier")
Re: Windows review ("Olivier")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Vann")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Vann")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Steve Mading)
OS Installation Help? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows review ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 4 Dec 2000 22:24:33 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 21:20:32 GMT,
Christopher L. Estep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<AUTW5.146155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ The problem with Linux isn't really XFree86 (not since Release 4), but
+ SOUND. Common sound cards (in particular, the Sound Blaster Live! family)
+ are STILL not supported natively in common Linux distributions (whereas
+ Windows 2000 INCLUDES basic drivers for these cards).
Drivers writen by whom? oh, yeah, the sound card manufacturers, many of
whom have historically been rather miserly with releasing any sort of
documentation to the OpenSource crowd, let alone providing their own
in-house drivers.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:32:42 GMT
"Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4gVV5.4168$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <908cgh$96a7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "SuperGumby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:6iNV5.676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I'm a Windows diehard, but if you want me to run win9x on a 386 with a
> >> GB
> > of
> >> RAM you can keep dreamin'.
> >
> > Those are the minimum requirements, it would install and work on such a
> > machine.
> >
> I may not personally like Windows, but I'm not particularly biased. If
> anyone thinks that Windows will run well on a 386, he or she is crazy.
> Windows95 on a 386 is beyond unusable, as is X on a *nix.
You can get more work done on such a machine in 95 than in any Linux distro
of the time.
True; RAM is dirt-cheap today (I personally recommend 128 MB as a "floor")
and likely won't get much (if any) cheaper.
However, the problem isn't RAM or even CPU power when comparing Windows (any
version) to Linux.
It's the learning curve of Windows (or lack of one) compared to the learning
curve for Linux.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: "Paul D. Smith" <[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: 04 Dec 2000 17:42:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
%% "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
cle> Linux still gets "tripped up" over some semi-common PC hardware
cle> (Dell Optiplexes are notorious for driving Linux Mandrake
cle> distributions crazy), whereas, in most cases, Windows 2000 pours
cle> on with the greatest of ease.
Can't speak about Mandrake because I've never used it, but I installed
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 on my Optiplex GX200 and it went perfectly.
I've heard there are issues with Mandrake 7.0 or 7.1 on some systems,
that were resolved with 7.2, but I don't use RH or RH-based systems so
I'm not up on the details.
cle> The problem with Linux isn't really XFree86 (not since Release
cle> 4), but SOUND. Common sound cards (in particular, the Sound
cle> Blaster Live! family) are STILL not supported natively in common
cle> Linux distributions (whereas Windows 2000 INCLUDES basic drivers
cle> for these cards).
SB Live! support is included in all recent 2.2.x kernels. I know it's
in 2.2.17, I can't recall exactly when it went in.
And I expect the sound situation to improve dramatically in the near
term when ALSA goes more mainstream; ALSA is already great but it's
still not typically bundled "natively" with most distros.
--
===============================================================================
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Methods & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
===============================================================================
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:16:36 +0200
"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WmUW5.146244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90bhbc$jfes$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "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?
>
>
> A. The stability of ANY OS depends to a VERY large part on the software
> that it runs and the interaction of said software with the OS.
> Windows 2000 Professional IS the most stable flavor of Windows for
DESKTOPS
> (not only per Microsoft, but per Dataquest, Maximum PC, CNET, et. alia.).
> It supports more productivity (and NON-productivity) software than Windows
> NT 4 (and almost as much as Windows 9x/ME).
Personally, I like Server better as my desktop.
Same functionality as a desktop, more power as a server.
> B. Finding (and downloading) properly certified WHQL drivers is more of a
> pain than it should be; however, this is NOT Microsoft's fault. Some
> vendors will go to all the trouble of developing certified drivers, then
> hide them in the labyrinthine world of the Web.
You can say that again. :)
> Case in point: Xirlink C-IT PC Camera, Models XVP 500/510/710. WHQL
> certified drivers for this USB camera exist (so says Microsoft's HCL and
> Xirlink's own Website). However, the drivers are on a "sidepage" that is
> NOT mentioned ANYWHERE (specifically,
> http://www.xirlink.com/ibmpccamera/drivers.htm). There is no link to said
> drivers (except from http://www.xirlink.com/ibmpccamera).
> Xirlink FORBADE MS to link to that page from the Web edition of the HCL
> (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/hcl). Xirlink also forbade MS from
> keeping a copy of the drivers on their FTP server (though MS IS allowed to
> keep a copy of the non-certified 9x drivers on the FTP server). I have
> complained (LOUDLY) to Xirlink about this, and when this camera breaks, I
> will NOT buy another from the company (who also makes such cameras under
the
> Options by IBM brand). It's safe to say that there are no Linux drivers
for
> this camera, either.
There are most certainly mad.
Are they *trying* to make sure you wouldn't use the drivers?
Personally, I'd a better luck with Intel's Easy-Pc camera or something.
Go to the site, search for "windows 2000 drivers", get the drivers, install,
and you are done.
> Finding WHQL drivers IS difficult. Finding Linux drivers can often be
> impossible.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:26:29 +0200
"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AUTW5.146155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Robert Wiegand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Guy wrote:
> >
> > > windows is easy to use...no brainer to use most of the time plus you
can
> > > get support up the wazoo...but its unstable, erratic, and downright
> > > bloody annoying...
> >
> > Windows may be easy to use, but is is *not* easy ti install.
> >
> > A big problem is that many people compare a pre-installed Windows
> > to a install-it-your self Linux. Then then complain that Linux
> > is too difficult.
> >
> > They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
>
> I've done every sort of Windows install you care to imagine, and with darn
> near every version of Windows (the ONLY exceptions being Windows 1.0 and
> Windows 2000 Datacenter Server). Windows/286, /386, 2.0, 3.x (.0, .1,
.11,
> Workgroups), 95 (original, SR1, SR2/2.1/2.5), NT (3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0), 98
> (Classic AND SE), ME, 2000 (Pro to Advanced Server).
>
> Fact is, Windows gets easier to install with each release, which can also
be
> said to be the case with Linux. However, for the first time that I can
> recall, the easiest OS to install is not only a Microsoft OS, but a
> Microsoft BUSINESS OS. Windows 2000 Professional is the EASIEST operating
> system to install and get running today. There is very little for a
typical
> user to do except some minimal typing and some mouse clicks (in fact,
there
> is far less than is involved in setting up Windows ME). Even more
likeable
> is the flat-out fact that Windows 2000 Professional is more
> hardware-friendly than any Microsoft business OS before it (and FAR
> friendlier than Linux).
I tried Whistler, aside from a minor comment of mine, which is that all the
questions should be at startup (a complaint I've ever since windows came
out), releasing the user to go elsewhere during the installation, it's
certainly the easiest that I've tried.
> Linux still gets "tripped up" over some semi-common PC hardware (Dell
> Optiplexes are notorious for driving Linux Mandrake distributions crazy),
> whereas, in most cases, Windows 2000 pours on with the greatest of ease.
>
> The problem with Linux isn't really XFree86 (not since Release 4), but
> SOUND. Common sound cards (in particular, the Sound Blaster Live! family)
> are STILL not supported natively in common Linux distributions (whereas
> Windows 2000 INCLUDES basic drivers for these cards).
I thought that Sound Blaster is the standard in the sound industry.
I certainly recall Sound Blaster or 100% compatible in a lot of Dos games.
> Unless Linux supports more common hardware (especially sound cards), it
will
> ALWAYS come in second place to Microsoft on the desktop.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:55:22 -0000
>Well, actually, Windows can do this too. Not as well, not as easily,
>and not as conveniently, but it can do it.
>
Wow, I never thought I would see you give even small praise to windows.
Are you having a sick day or something max?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:58:37 -0000
>Tried StarOffice 5.2, and it was close. But there were minor
>differences for documents that use a lot of fancy formatting and it
>happens that our standard templates hit some of the gotchas.
>
Maybe (if you are lucky) those problems may be fixed in openoffice 6?
Or perhaps you could create a simple template in word which breaks
on openoffice or staroffice and send it to the development team so it
can be corrected in future versions?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 23:07:26 -0000
>You mean "each and ever trifling configuration change"
>
Thanks for correcting my mistake Aaron.
I guess the CTRL-ALT-DEL to logon on NT is on of ms's in-jokes at their
gullible customers.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:13:57 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> (Is OpenFile() part of Win32? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.)
A FileOpen call IS documented as part of the Win32 API callset; in fact,
many compilers (including those by Inprise/Corel) include documentation on
the entire API callset that Win32 uses.
The *so-called* undocumented API calls are often those originally only
documented to a single operating system (usually NT); the current WHQL
certification schema flat-out ignores (for good reason) any application that
uses NT-isms (or 9x-isms); as the two OSes "merge" there are fewer of these
single-OS API calls (however, even these are often well-documented; just not
used by other operating systems other than the one for which they were
documented).
>
> >
> >Do you know that COM is an open spec now, too? And that there is an
> >implementation of COM available for Linux? Is that a
reverse-engineering,
> >just because it's a different implementation of the spec?
Indeed there is, based on documentation given to The Open Group BY
Microsoft. The Open Group was also, last I heard, hard at work on an
OS/2-native COM. (Hamilton Laboratories and Mortice Kern Systems have
already ported COM to both POSIX and UNIX.)
And no, Microsft did NOT have to be sued to give the COM documentation to
the Open Group. Microsoft had made plain that all COM documentation would
be given to the Open Group as soon as the documentation ITSELF had been
written.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:17:44 GMT
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90h8b7$110de$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >You mean "each and ever trifling configuration change"
> >
>
>
> Thanks for correcting my mistake Aaron.
>
>
> I guess the CTRL-ALT-DEL to logon on NT is on of ms's in-jokes at their
> gullible customers.
This unalterable (at least in NT 4) way of forcing identification is
actually a strength in the NT security model.
You can (and most companies do) lock down terminals (or Linux/UNIX boxes) in
similar fashion.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: "Olivier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Commentary on a Windows REinstallation last night
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:24:12 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So much for user friendliness.... But I guess they didn't consider you'd
need to install or re install. If it breaks then they blame the hardware
and you buy a new copy with your new machine......
> Hello,
>
> i had the fortunate experience last night of reinstalling Windows98. I
> have to say that after experiencing Linux installs and going back to a
> Windows install left me basically wondering why I even put up with it
> (but i have got programs that only work in Windows so i have to put up
> withit for now).
>
> The initial time frame said 30-60 minutes until the process was done.
> After the screen was updated the time jumped to 87 minutes. HOw MS could
> approximate time that far off is beyond me. If anything I'd tell users
> 90 minutes so at least they wouldn't sink in their seats when the
> timespan went up instead of down.
>
> After waiting for the files to copy it tried to configure PnP hardware.
> Afterwards I had to reboot of course. Then it goes into Windows I
> believe after this setting up the Menus and various other things if I
> recall correctly. Also, if I recall correctly it tried to setup other
> hardware that I had as well. For some reason though I had to install my
> ATI drivers, my sound drivers, my Adaptec 2930u2 driver, my dvdrom
> driver, my modem driver, and my NIC driver. But before all that was
> actually accomplished the system froze on the first or 2nd device it was
> setting things up for, which of course I had to reboot in order to get
> out of.
>
> Eventually i got to get all my drivers in and I got to sit through 5-10
> reboots. I forget how many exactly. I did try to save time rebooting
> byinstalling 3 devices at once and then rebooting. That did help
> somewhat.
>
> After about the 4th reboot I believe I lost my sound(which is what
> happened the first time I installed Win98; this was my 2nd
> installation). Windows feels it necessary to mute my Wave device every
> single time I boot. Don't ask me why. I'm still struggling to get my
> Dvd working (which was fine under Win95). Windows sometimes sees it,
> sometimes it doesn't "feel" like it and therefore I can't watch movies
> whenever I want to.
>
> Now as for the comparison betweeen windows and Linux. I wonder why it
> takes 3 reboots to get Windows up and running so you can use it when it
> only takes Linux once? And after those 3 reboots you still have to
> configure your hardware by installing drivers. When I install Suse Linux
> i can configure my modem and my video card during the installation. For
> some reason I can't do that in Windows even though there is a step where
> it supposedly 'configures' your hardware. Plus, on an initial install u
> won't have much to do with Windows. At least with Linux I had a ton of
> utilities already on the system as well as some games I could try out.
> Given they aren't games like Quake or C&C but then again Windows doesn't
> come with those either. Actually, Windows doesn't come with anything
> really useful, besides an OS that likes to act like a web browser and
> vice versa.
>
> I know one thing. If I have to do this again I'm not putting Windows
> back on this drive. The Windows isntall was pathetic compared to a
> Linux install. I was asking myself why it had to reboot 3 times when
> Linux doesn't, among various other things.
>
>
>
> well, there is my rant. have fun with it
------------------------------
From: "Olivier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:30:37 +0000
In article <eYUW5.146297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher
L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You think it's easier because you've used it so long.... Unix is more
logical. That makes it easier to understand.
>
> "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4gVV5.4168$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <908cgh$96a7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "SuperGumby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:6iNV5.676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I'm a Windows diehard, but if you want me to run win9x on a 386 with
>> >> a GB
>> > of
>> >> RAM you can keep dreamin'.
>> >
>> > Those are the minimum requirements, it would install and work on such
>> > a machine.
>> >
>> I may not personally like Windows, but I'm not particularly biased. If
>> anyone thinks that Windows will run well on a 386, he or she is crazy.
>> Windows95 on a 386 is beyond unusable, as is X on a *nix.
>
> You can get more work done on such a machine in 95 than in any Linux
> distro of the time.
>
>
> True; RAM is dirt-cheap today (I personally recommend 128 MB as a
> "floor") and likely won't get much (if any) cheaper.
>
> However, the problem isn't RAM or even CPU power when comparing Windows
> (any version) to Linux.
>
> It's the learning curve of Windows (or lack of one) compared to the
> learning curve for Linux.
>
> Christopher L. Estep
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:39:54 GMT
In article <a3EW5.9418$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip my post>
>
> Or you can just get a real OS with a real windowing and display system
> that support advanced font rendering, color correction, aliasing or
> anti-, etc.
>
> -Chad
It infuriates me when I try to help a person and I receive a slap in the
face for it. You sir, disgust me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:43:44 GMT
On 4 Dec 2000 18:47:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Daley's iron grip of Chicago is a well known fact.
>Uhhmmm...Sweetie, I live in chicago and have for quite some time. You
>obviously never have.
>
>Ive also met the mayor on a number of occasions, and have had the
>opportunity to be social and professional with people close to him
>politically.
Chad is just confused between Daley Sr. and Daley Jr. Rush forgot to
tell him that one of them was dead.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:43:46 GMT
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:33:25 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So it's a new product? So what?! No other application of NS6 level takes
>that much memory.
Not even...Mozilla.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:47:58 GMT
In article <XpAW5.891$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Very ;) Actually, It does look better after chaing the dpi. Thanks.
>
> Worse yet, I have just found out that Linux-Mandrake ships with all hard
> drive optimizations turned off. You have to fiddle with the hdparm
> program to get dma and multisector reads turned on. Then figure out how
> to make it permanent ;)
>
>
>
I can't control myself, heh. hdparm is your friend. For Mandrake, which
does have the hard drive optimization option on install ( For 7.0 and up )
I believe, but may be wrong, that you just set HDPARM to 1 in
/etc/sysconfig/system That is, change the line HDPARM=0 to HDPARM=1 Or,
you could just add the line: hdparm -q -d1 -q -c1 -q -A1 -q -m16 /dev/hda
Add another line like that for each hard drive you want optimizations for.
You can remove the -A1 and -m16 if you want, and see what that does for you.
Vann the magical helper robot, signing off.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: 4 Dec 2000 23:45:29 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <90dq5d$4u9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
:>So how do they know the problem is with Windows? If they don't know
:>why, they can't really say what the cause is can they?
:>
:>
: This is the catch 22 you will never resolve. The boss believes
: them as we have other servers which don't have MF running on
: them which are blue screening.
: My personal opinion is there shouldn't really be anything a
: COBOL compiler could do which would blue screen a Windows Server.
: It's not C nor C++, it's cobol here!
Even if it was C or C++, the COMPILER shouldn't be able to
do that. Maybe a program created with the compiler could,
but that's something else altogether.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OS Installation Help?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:48:42 GMT
I'm expecting to get a new hard drive in the next few weeks :) Let's
say it's an 80 gig drive.
I would like to have the following OS's installed on it. Linux
(Corel), Windows Me (i know but i love games), and Windows 2000 (java
and oracle development).
How should i proceed? I would like to have 20 gig set aside for Linux,
40 gig for Me and 20 gig for Win 2000.
I don't know anything about how to install multiple os's because the
whole partitioning thing is confusing to me.
I'm sure this has been asked a million times and i apologize. If you
can point me to some FAQ's, that would be great.
Thank you so much,
Dave
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 4 Dec 2000 23:58:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 07:41:59 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>> > Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
:>>
:>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
:>
:>Only to those with previous experience with power switches.
:>
:>Put a computer in front of a person from a remote village which
:>has no electrical service, and let's see how "intuitive" the
:>power switch is.
: OK, now you are getting silly. Give those villagers electricity, and
: all the usual electrical applicances other than computers, and let them
: become comfortable with them, THEN give them a computer. The power switch
: on the computer will be intuitive to them.
This demonstrates the point, actually. It's "intuative" only
because it's similar to what was already learned. At some point,
it *did* have to be learned because it was not intuative *yet*.
If you show someone how to use vi who *hasn't* used a different
sort of editor yet, it's not as difficult to teach it to them.
The difficulty comes from assuming incorrectly that it should
behave exactly the same as some other company's editor. Vi is
*different*, which makes it harder to learn, but this difference
is also the source of its incredible speed at the hands of an
experienced user (fingers don't lose the home-row keys - everything
complex can be done without moving your right hand over to the
'special' keys, and this makes a gigantic difference in typing
speed.) There's that, and the powerful commands that only take a
few keystrokes, like ">%" to indent a squiggly-brace section, or
"d$" to delete to end-of-line, and so on. They are not
instinctive to the new user, but they *are* internally consistent,
so picking up new commands is intuative to someone who has
the basics. (d-something means delete it, and '$' means end-of
line, therefore 'd$' means delete to end-of-line - it's internally
consisent, and thus very fast to build upon your knowlege once you
get over the hump of initial contact with it.)
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 19:06:52 -0500
"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
> You can get more work done on such a machine in 95 than in any Linux distro
> of the time.
>
> True; RAM is dirt-cheap today (I personally recommend 128 MB as a "floor")
> and likely won't get much (if any) cheaper.
>
> However, the problem isn't RAM or even CPU power when comparing Windows (any
> version) to Linux.
>
> It's the learning curve of Windows (or lack of one) compared to the learning
> curve for Linux.
>
And what does one "learn" on Windows in the first place?
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
