Linux-Advocacy Digest #678, Volume #30 Wed, 6 Dec 00 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Whistler review. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is awful ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What does KDE do after all ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Anybody considering Linux should read this. (tom)
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS ("the_blur")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Commentary on a Windows REinstallation last night ("the_blur")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:25:30 GMT
[snips]
"WorLord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Or how about turning on ultra DMA?
> >> Done for you on install.
> >Not in Mandrake 7.2 it's not.
>
> Uh, *yes*, it *is.*
>
> I've installed it on 20 different machines now. Twenty. Two-oh. And
> *every single time*, there is a little star called "use hard drive
> optimizations". And a DMESG shows that they are, in fact, being used.
Odd; I installed it just the other day - or tried to. It wouldn't even
recogniz that the drives _existed_, never mind supporting them.
UltraDMA-100. Doesn't understand it at all, apparently. 'Course. throwing
them onto the IDE bus let it find them - but so much for the UDMA support.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:48:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said kiwiunixman in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 02 Dec 2000 15:49:42
>
>when at University, we used VB for around 8 weeks to understand the
>basic way of programming, the input-processing-output method, however,
>the emphasis was mainly put on C/C++ as it allowed student (like me) to
>go into the big wide world knowing that you are not restricted to one
>particular platform.
While it is certainly not on-subject, I think its very interesting that
apparently there are still some universities capable of teaching
knowledge and understanding adequately. BASIC was, after all, designed
to teach the basic way of programming, the input-processing-output
method, as you put it, and it is more than appropriate (necessary, from
what I have heard) to focus immediately on a "real" programming language
thereafter.
I hope it works out for ya, there, kiwidude.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:43:12 GMT
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:42:07 -0500,
the_blur <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote:
>> and micro$oft Winbugs is a big shit
>> and Bill Gays is a son of the bitch !!!
>
>Bill Gates Gave 21 Million dollars (I think, this could be more I'm not
>sure) of his personal money to charity this year. He's a good man, what us
>linuxfolk think of him doesn't matter much. He wants to give away 21 BILLION
>dollars to charity during his life.
>
>(If you're wondering, I just saw the report on CBS about him)
>
>
Yes and I bet you believe he will be PENNY LESS after this,
joing the church and become a nun in India!
The fact he has this money from the sale of this crap
just makes my stomach turn. Can you believe he made
that much money off people selling Windows?
My god! People.
Windows?
It's messages like this which only leave me to conclude
that the U.S.A. is utterly doomed.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:29:17 GMT
[snips]
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZRdX5.4296$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, if you double click a reg file, it tell you "Are you sure you want
to
> > add the information in <file name> to the registry?"
>
> No, it doesn't, it just blithely merges it into the registry.
If it doesn't, then it's because _you_ (or whoever did your Windows install)
*specifically* went out of their way to *make* it not ask. It can be done -
but it's not done that way by default.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.invest.stocks,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical?
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:53:43 -0600
"jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Isn't it hypocritical for Microsoft to complain about getting
> shut out of AOL-Time Warner's broadband network when they
> effectively shut out Linux on all the cheapest PC's?
jt: One more time. It's not Microsoft that shuts Linux out of those PC's,
but rather Linux itself, since those PC's cannot run a released version of
Linux. Period. End of story. Someday, when the 2.4 kernel is released, it
will be able to. But OEM's are not going to ship pre-release kernels on
machines.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:59:46 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:06:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:00:03
>> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:90h7km$14a6j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >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?
>> >
>> >File>Print>Print To File
>> >
>> >How much simplier can it get?
>>
>> Not that simple, certainly. Not even on Unix. Sure, the brain-dead
>> idea that you "just" execute the command is simple enough. I believe we
>> were discussing what is necessary for the command to actually do what
>> you want. For what its worth, your 'simplier' is going to output
>> whatever's on screen to whatever's the default printer, not output an
>> arbitrary file to postscript. See what I mean?
>
>File>Print> (result in a dialog about what printer to print it to)
>PostScript Printer>Print To File
>Not that much harder. :)
Thank you for confirming that you missed the point.
[...]
>> Obviously, these are things to praise, as X has increased its keyboard
>> support significantly and all apps generally adopt the standard GUI app
>> layout, MDI interface. (Windows supports many more 'real world'
>> interfaces that break this method than most Unix systems.)
>
>Actually, that is technically incorrect.
I'm sorry, Ayende, but I know for a fact you haven't the ability to
correct me on what is technically correct or not.
>It's *much* more easier to use Windows' builtin controls to do GUI, then
>design your own *real world* interfaces.
Yes nevertheless, Windows supports many more 'real world' interfaces
that break this method than most Unix systems. Perhaps you missed
understood the verb 'supports' in the context of my statement?
>BTW, there is nothing that prevents you from doing this on any OS that you
>want.
>QT4 is the (sad) proof of that.
Gotta take a cut, eh? You're proving to be a Windroid, Ayende.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:55:19 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pipes and shell commands are nice, but they are limited, and they don't
> do everything. The same goes for structured programming, C programming,
> and object oriented programming.
And all this time I thought you just needed a Turing machine to do
everything.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anybody considering Linux should read this.
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:47:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:12:14 GMT, tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I see adds in Computer User and elsewhere for Linux certification
> >training. How would that work? Certainly, somebody would need to
set
> >standards for certification; otherwise, companies would have no
> >guarantee (as if they do now) that new hires will have a certain
> >minimum level of skill & knowledge. But who sets the standard for
> >Linux and who "sells" the certifications?
> >
> >Tom
> >
>
> RedHat certification can be obtained fairly cheaply.
For a little less green stuff than the M$ certifications, I trust.
Tom
> LSB Linux Standard Base is establishing some of this.
>
> Charlie
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:55:55 -0500
> Yes and I bet you believe he will be PENNY LESS after this,
> joing the church and become a nun in India!
Of course not, but charity being what it is, and capitalism being what it
is, never forget that he's giving a hell of a lot more than we are and
helping a hell of a lot more people than we are AND HE'S NOT OBLIGATED IN
ANY WAY TO DO SO. Get it? He gives because he's a nice guy. Trying to
dehumanize him because you don't have his money/power or whatever it is you
covet changes nothing. 21 billion is a large sum of money, no one said you
had to make yourself pennyless to be a charitable person.
You can attack Windows all you want, but character assasination is assinine
and juvenile.
> The fact he has this money from the sale of this crap
> just makes my stomach turn. Can you believe he made
> that much money off people selling Windows?
Who cares? That's not the point. Besides, Windows isn't bad, if it were we'd
be using something else. I use Linux man, I know "Linux is the Right Thing
To Do �" but even I can see the glaring bugs in it. Ask me about using Linux
for graphic design someday so you can learn how unready for me linux really
is. Even Windows 98 / MacOS (cooperative multitasking and NO memory
protection) can beat Linux to a pulp in color calibration, postscript
output, imagesetter support, Graphic Design Application support, multiformat
cutting and pasting and most of all STABILITY in the desktop.
> It's messages like this which only leave me to conclude
> that the U.S.A. is utterly doomed.
I'm Canadian =)
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 01:05:20 -0500
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| Ayende Rahien wrote:
| >
| > > Say, does anyone hate those shitty fading menus and their crappy
| > > "continuation arrow" (or whatever they call it)? Drives me nuts
| > > to see just a few options, and have to move down and click to
| > > see the rest. Furthermore, some of the options are embossed inward,
| > > for no reason that I can see. Pretty ugly enhancement to the
| > > Windozzzzzzzzz interface, if you ask me.
| >
| > Then why don't you turn those off?
|
| The next time I boot to Win 2000, I will. In the meantime, can you
| tell me how to get rid of the embossing and compression of menu
| feature while in Word 2000 (on my NT machine at work)? It takes
| me forever to navigate GUIs looking for intuitive menu entries.
Tools -> Customize -> Options Tab -> disable "Menus show recently used
commands first".
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on a Windows REinstallation last night
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:03:27 -0500
Man, were you installing over an existing Windows Install? That's the only
way I've managed to get windows to take more than 30 minutes to install. Or
you have a computer with the speed of a 386.
It sounds like your original windows install is totally fuxx0r3d...
You might try formatting / deleting windows and program files next time
before installing, that way it takes much less time. I reinstall windows 98
every year on average more out of superstition than anything else.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:12:17 -0600
"WorLord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
> >> A simple switch added to lilo.conf does it.
> >Perhaps on some distros, but no longer on Mandrake 7.2,
>
> This is misinformation. MD adds the switch, just to rc.local instead
> of lilo.conf. However, I've not had to add it myself, MD does it for
> you.
You can't add a switch to rc.local. Duh! You can only add scripting, which
might call a program with switches such as hdparm.
MD as of 7.2 no longer does it for you. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
> >Hmm.. I haven't found this utility yet. It's certainly not available
from
> >any menus or in the DrakConf.
>
> That's wrong. 100% wrong.
>
> Unless you chose not to install it, DrakFont is in DrakConf.
I let the setup install every program it wanted to. I told it to install
100%. DrakFont is not in my DrakConf.
> >As opposed to click a drop down box in a GUI?
>
> Mandrake uses DrakX to configure resolution, color depth, and Montior
> Refresh. It then asks you to test the configuration, to make sure it
> works before you switch to it.
As far as I can tell, it only allows you to select the generic monitor types
at certain frequencies. My monitor, the Sony GDM-F500 doesn't list a
refresh rate and provides no way to change it graphically (that I can see)
as do every other name brand monitor listed in DrakX. All you can do is
select Resolution and color depth.
> Easier and more presise then Windows, IMO, and all *done in a GUI*.
How is it easier or more precise?
> I'm noticing a trend, here, about you being completely ignorant of the
> GUI methods of doing things in MD and then subsequently claiming that
> such things imply don't *have* a GUI method. I'm here to tell you
> that they exist, and you simply are not aware of any of them. Go to
> Mandrake's site, and watch all the tutorial movies... they are well
> done, and go through just about everything you're asking.
Mandrake claims in it's "What's new in Linux-Mandrake 7.2" section that 7.2
includes
"Simplified DrakX graphical installation". It appears to have simplified it
so much that you can't do lots of stuff anymore.
>
>
> >You honestly think messing
> >with config files is simple for someone that doesn't know how to set
their
> >VCR?
>
> I'd argue that a person who can't set their VCR has no business on a
> computer, but that is simply my conjecture.
>
>
> >The subject was Aaron claiming
> >that Linux is only more difficult on things that you can't do in Windows.
> >That's patently not true.
>
> Yes, it is, and simply because you aren't aware of the "easy way", via
> GUI, doesn't mean that easier way doesn't exist.
>
>
> --WorLord
>
> "You could spend an hour counting the petals in a flower
> It might take you a year to count the veins in each petal
> If you spent ten lifetimes, maybe you could count its cells...
>
> ...but you'd have completely missed the point
> You fuckhead."
------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 06:11:39 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ttaX5.14807$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You don't have to specifically learn "d$" to synthesize if
> > from previous knowledge.
>
> What previous knowledge tells you the function of "d$"?
It would be a special case only if it is the first vi command
you see. Vi commands are virtually always in the form:
[count] command [where]
You probably already know that [count] means an optional
number can precede a command as a repeat count or as
a rare special case if the command is G, the number specifies
an absolute line number. Thus as you need and learn the
different command letters and ways to describe the optional
[where] you don't need to relearn arbitrary new ways to
combine them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:21:12 -0600
"WorLord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> >"WorLord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Or how about turning on ultra DMA?
> >> Done for you on install.
> >Not in Mandrake 7.2 it's not.
>
> Uh, *yes*, it *is.*
>
> I've installed it on 20 different machines now. Twenty. Two-oh. And
> *every single time*, there is a little star called "use hard drive
> optimizations". And a DMESG shows that they are, in fact, being used.
>
>
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/demos/Demo/Mandrake7.2/Install/Expert/pages
/expert6.php3
> shows a screenshot of the *exact* stage in the install, in fact.
Yup, but guess what? I checked that during install, and when I booted up
DMA was not enabled, and only 16 bit I/O was was enabled. I had to manually
change this and install it into the startup. All this seems to do is setup
the boot options to ide0=autotune, which did absolutely no tuning on my
system.
> >FontDrake (or rather drakfont) doesn't exist on my 7.2 install. I do see
> >conf files, but a locate doesn't find it.
> >I did find it in the RPM's on the CD though.
>
> Then you probably didn't install it.
I never told it to not install it, and I told it to install 100% of
everything.
> >If it works for you. It doesn't for me.
>
> DrakX doesn't work for you? I find that difficult to believe, but
> okay.
No, the X drivers for my card don't work for me, I can only use generic
SVGA.
> >You cannot give me an "idiot simple" way of doing these things that work
on
> >every distribution.
>
> I don't have to, since I'm posting from a Mandrake-Specific newsgroup;
> and furthermore, I haven't argued in this thread for any other
> distro's pro's or con's other then LM 7.2.
You may be posting to such a newsgroup, but it's not being read by me and
others in that newsgroup. Look at the distribution list.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:22:25 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kYdX5.20265$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WorLord wrote:
>
> > Uh, *yes*, it *is.*
> >
> > I've installed it on 20 different machines now. Twenty. Two-oh. And
> > *every single time*, there is a little star called "use hard drive
> > optimizations". And a DMESG shows that they are, in fact, being used.
>
> Yep, it's on mine too. He's right there.
>
> There's also a warning it may not work too.
Yes, the box is there, but it doesn't do anything. At least not on my TX
chipset motherboard with UDMA..
See my other post.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 06:25:03 GMT
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:55:55 -0500,
the_blur <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes and I bet you believe he will be PENNY LESS after this,
>> joing the church and become a nun in India!
>
>Of course not, but charity being what it is, and capitalism being what it
>is, never forget that he's giving a hell of a lot more than we are and
>helping a hell of a lot more people than we are AND HE'S NOT OBLIGATED IN
>ANY WAY TO DO SO. Get it? He gives because he's a nice guy. Trying to
>dehumanize him because you don't have his money/power or whatever it is you
>covet changes nothing. 21 billion is a large sum of money, no one said you
>had to make yourself pennyless to be a charitable person.
>
>You can attack Windows all you want, but character assasination is assinine
>and juvenile.
>
>> The fact he has this money from the sale of this crap
>> just makes my stomach turn. Can you believe he made
>> that much money off people selling Windows?
>
>Who cares? That's not the point. Besides, Windows isn't bad, if it were we'd
>be using something else. I use Linux man, I know "Linux is the Right Thing
>To Do �" but even I can see the glaring bugs in it. Ask me about using Linux
>for graphic design someday so you can learn how unready for me linux really
>is. Even Windows 98 / MacOS (cooperative multitasking and NO memory
>protection) can beat Linux to a pulp in color calibration, postscript
>output, imagesetter support, Graphic Design Application support, multiformat
>cutting and pasting and most of all STABILITY in the desktop.
>
>> It's messages like this which only leave me to conclude
>> that the U.S.A. is utterly doomed.
>
>I'm Canadian =)
>
>
Oh blather!
Tell this crap to the guy's who made the movie Titanic!
It was all done using Linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:29:31 -0600
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90jrr8$1ft1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Win98? Weeks at a time?
> I'm impressed.
> Do call Guniess, you are a first.
No, he's not. I've run Win98 for weeks at a time as well. My longest
uptime on 98SE was almost 2 months. I ended up having to reboot because the
modem locked up and wouldn't dial (not a problem with Win9x, the modem was a
crappy old Cardinal modem that had that problem, even under FreeBSD.)
There's no black magic involved with keeping 98 up and running. It just
involves doing routine maintenance. Defragging the drive, Optimizing the
registry (using RegClean or Norton's optimization wizard), and keeping the
DLL problems under control with SFC (system file checker). Also, using
hardware with known good drivers.
I'm not claiming that Win98SE is rock solid stable, just that it's not as
instable as people seem to think if it's properly maintained.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 06:28:54 GMT
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:29:31 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:90jrr8$1ft1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Win98? Weeks at a time?
>> I'm impressed.
>> Do call Guniess, you are a first.
>
>No, he's not. I've run Win98 for weeks at a time as well. My longest
>uptime on 98SE was almost 2 months. I ended up having to reboot because the
>modem locked up and wouldn't dial (not a problem with Win9x, the modem was a
>crappy old Cardinal modem that had that problem, even under FreeBSD.)
>
>There's no black magic involved with keeping 98 up and running. It just
>involves doing routine maintenance. Defragging the drive, Optimizing the
>registry (using RegClean or Norton's optimization wizard), and keeping the
>DLL problems under control with SFC (system file checker). Also, using
>hardware with known good drivers.
>
>I'm not claiming that Win98SE is rock solid stable, just that it's not as
>instable as people seem to think if it's properly maintained.
>
>
You forgot to mention the rabbits foot in your back pocket.
And your totally full of shit here also EF.
Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:33:16 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iAgX5.34718$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Hercules Dynamite 128/Video. It's an tseng labs ET6000 chipset. When
> > selecting either ET6000 or Hercules Dynamite 128/Video, the x server
fails
> > to start. It's only error message "Try some different settings". I've
> > tried every refresh rate, every video size, every color depth. I've
tried
> > just about every setting. It just doesn't work. So I have to use
> generic
> > SVGA, and even that causes all kids of screen corruption problems.
> >
> > As I said, this card worked fine under Mandrake 7.1 and fine under
> Windows.
> > There's nothing wrong with it.
>
> The Mandrake 7.2 has an option to install the older version of the X
server
> which should be the same as the one in 7.1.
I think that this option is only there in expert mode. And i'm not doing
another 3 hour install.
I know I can install it manually, but I've been hoping to FIX the problem
rather than just drop back.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:38:15 -0600
"Uncle Fester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Hercules Dynamite 128/Video. It's an tseng labs ET6000 chipset. When
> > selecting either ET6000 or Hercules Dynamite 128/Video, the x server
fails
> > to start. It's only error message "Try some different settings". I've
> > tried every refresh rate, every video size, every color depth. I've
tried
> > just about every setting. It just doesn't work. So I have to use
generic
> > SVGA, and even that causes all kids of screen corruption problems.
> >
> > As I said, this card worked fine under Mandrake 7.1 and fine under
Windows.
> > There's nothing wrong with it.
>
> Which version of X are you attempting to install, 4.0.1 or 3.3.6? And
> is it the same version as you used in LM 7.1? I'm not so sure 4.0.1
> will support that card offhand, but I'd sure think that 3.3.6 would.
4.0.1. X claims to support the card, and even lists it specifically. The
tseng driver claims support for the ET6000. It doesn't work for me. In
reading the XFree86 mailing list archive, it seems that a bug was discovered
in the 4.0.1 tseng driver in September, which may be my problem. Of course
4.0.1 was released in July, and no official patches exist.
I know I can go back to 3.3.6, but I'd rather try and fix it because 4.0.1
has much better performance. And besides, this isn't simply a matter of
copying a few driver files. I've got to do a lot of work to go back to
3.3.6.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
