Linux-Advocacy Digest #329, Volume #31 Mon, 8 Jan 01 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: RPM Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Step-by step to install Linux RH7 and Win98. (gataway)
Re: RPM Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: RPM Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: RPM Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Bob Nelson)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: RPM Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: RPM Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: RPM Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Hatred? ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:39:49 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 08 Jan
[...]
>I'm not sure if POSIX counts, admittedly. :-) Of course, NT hews
>to POSIX as well. I'm not sure how well.
Well, I'm the one that brought up POSIX, when pressed to identify "the
de facto standard OS". It is the closest thing to an OS standard, and
the ubiquitous Unix library support it describes is the specification
around which the industry coalesces. That way of running computers
"like Unix", if not the POSIX specification itself.
I would have pointed to "Unix", but while quite accurate it would not
have been consistent; exactly what I mean by "Unix" doesn't necessarily
correspond to what anyone else might peg as the 'definitive Unix'.
There are various claims to the term and the concept.
The industry migration from BSD to SystemV was far more indicative of
Unix than who owns a copyright, or what the 'certification test' is.
Linux is more Unix than AIX, to be honest, though Linux is also far more
progressive, and far more definitive, by its open source, than many
other derivatives of "the Unix way".
That One Microsoft Way must, inevitably, attempt interoperability with
'the standard' is not questionable. The issue is what, precisely,
they've taken from the lessons learned by the bulk of development in
computer sciences and engineering which were already available, but
untapped, when little William the Third was putzing around with BASIC
and dreaming of world conquest.
>>Also, Win32 is not actually a "specification" anyway! It is, however,
>>"widely implemented across the industry" even if it is technically inferior
>>to Linux, which is far less commonly implemented at present.
>
>Pedant point: apples and oranges; you should probably be comparing
>Win32 to X.
Not hardly. X is a remote display terminal mechanism; Win32 is an
entire pile of OS, middleware, and application APIs. X is network
transparent; Win32 is entirely opaque. It might be best to compare it
(Win32) to GNOME, or its would-be commercial rival, KDE. But generally,
its just middleware, as far as I am concerned. X might seem to serve a
similar purpose in end-user operation, but the functionality is entirely
different.
>Of course, X doesn't seem to have MulDiv().... :-)
Wassat?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:39:51 GMT
Said Richard Thrippleton in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 07 Jan 2001
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>> You can "install from the source", with "optimised" code, with whatever
>> build parameters you choose with RPM.
>>
>> Don't criticise what you don't understand.
>
> I must admit that I haven't had that much experience with the RPM
>system, but plenty with the Debian package manager. I was reliably
>informed(even by RPM users) that the Debian system was superior and more
>friendly.
Well, that should have been your first clue. ;-)
>Hence, my grotesque experiences with that led me to believe that
>RPM must be just as bad, maybe worse. Now, a little more detail about the
>deb system problems. There were some binaries lying around that I didn't
>particularly want ('vi' and 'emacs', much preferring 'ae'), so I killed
>them. After that, every time I tried to install a package, the process
>failed about half the time, complaining about missing packages, even though
>there was no way on earth they could depend on the missing binaries. You may
>well now be thinking "Fool shouldn't have fiddled with his system; he got
>what he deserved".
I don't think anyone who says that deserves the label 'dweeb'. Its
obviously a flaw in the system, if it doesn't do what you want, so long
as you're knowledgable about what it is you want.
>That might be a valid response in a windows environment,
>where you expect the OS to break if you do anything more complex than drool
>and click, but not under Linux where one of the key benefits is supposed to
>be unhindered flexibility and control. Well, that's my deb rant, and maybe
>RPM is better, contrary to the opinion I've seen. The only time RPM has
>irritated me personally is when some fool has left a tempting bit of
>software out on his/her page in .rpm form only, thinking that's the
>'standard'. Since discovering rpm2tgz it's not a problem though; bless
>Slackware and its beautiful package system!
> Well, feel free to tell me where I went wrong, or point out the pluses
>of the RPM system over a more global standard like tgz.
Well, I'm hoping you're wrong, as I'm about one click away from buying a
Linux desktop, and I'm getting the RedHat Deluxe package. Any good
gouge on rpm would be much appreciated.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:42:17 +0800
From: gataway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Step-by step to install Linux RH7 and Win98.
But if i want to install more OS like win2000, winNT, can i still use lilo?
ID wrote:
> 1= install win98
> 2= install partitionmagic.. but do NOT install bootmagic.
> 3=resize your existing partition with partitionmagic to create ampty space
> for linux. (min. 600mb. 2+GB is good idea)
> do NOT need to create a partition, just an empty space for linux.
>
> than try to install RH7-linux, follow on-screen instructions, you don't need
> a boot manager, linux has its own bootmanager called "lilo" that will take
> care of your win98 too.
>
> good luck
> ismet
>
> "gataway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm going to setup a new system with two ATA 100 harddisk, one for win
> > 98 the other for Linux RH7.I'm planning to have BootMAgic and Partition
> > Magic install .
> > So which OS do i install first? And what partition is needed for noth
> > win98SE and Linux? Can i have and exmaple of how much space for each
> > partition? I will
> > Install most of the application and games on win98SE ,as for linux i am
> > a newbie still
> > need to explore more about it.Kindly give me a senerio on what to do.
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:45:48 GMT
Said Glitch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:58:40
>Ignoring the original problem won't make it go away,even if u do say
>they are trolls.
Yes, it will, because they aren't our problems. Be a consumer; screw
the other guy.
>Just b/c it works fine for you doesn't mean it does for everyone else.
>remember YMMV?
But we know it works fine more often than monopoly crapware, so the only
people we really *need* to be concerned about is ourselves. If we could
help with these problems, fine, but we can't; they're somebody else's
problems.
>I had a similar experience with installing the AVI plugin for xmms,
>which i had to end up downloading SDL just b/c i needed the sdl-config
>file, even though i had all the other files. I then also had to compile
>SDL which had a couple errors and I had to fix those.
>
>So don't assume everything is peachy keen when installing things just
>b/c they go good for YOU.
So long as you successfully can figure out how to fix a problem (as you
did), you really can't blame the problem on anyone else but the
programmer or administrator who was at fault; that may have been you, or
may not. You're trying to 'turn the tables', I gather, and somehow
'indict' Linux for the fact that some people have problems, and some of
those problems are 'Linux' problems. Well, "oh, bother."
This ain't proprietary monopoly crapware. If you got a problem, FIX IT!
If you don't, then tell us why, and it might help. Don't bother
complaining on Usenet because things aren't peachy keen for you every
step of the way. If you got a problem with a distro's package
management, give 'em a call! You did buy the box for the tech support,
didn't you? Or read a lot. (Personally, I like the 'buy the box',
route, though I end up reading a lot, anyway.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:47:00 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001
[...]
>Bullshit. The Penguinista's [...]
You obviously don't have anything intelligent to say.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:49:58 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:58:45
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 6 Jan 2001 07:30:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Look, KDE is the f*cking GUI for god's sake. Do you upgrade the Windows
>> >GUI without an "operating system upgrade" ? The fact that Linux even
>gives
>> >you flexibility to upgrade the GUI while leaving the rest of the
>> >system untouched is a testimony to its power and flexibility.
>>
>> Bullshit. The Penguinista's are constantly extolling the virtues of
>> Linux's package management over Windows Install shield. Tell the
>> person who runs kde, has all his applications launch from kde and may
>> or may not even know what a CLI is that kde is just the GUI. To him it
>> is his entire system.
>> What good is flexibility when the choices presented all suck?
>>
>> I'd rather have one consistent and high quality UI like Windows or Mac
>> than have a collection of half done inconsistent UI's that don't even
>> interact well with each other.
>
>Then take your silly ass to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy.
>On second thought, Claire, just stick around. I find your posts amusing!
>
>Though this refers to another thread...
>
>I rather doubt your Impala would stand a chance against a Boxster. That
>Impala is awfully heavy. If you're pushing the mid 400hp range, running
>411s, and actually know how to hole shot, you could possibly do it. If the
>race were more than a simple 1/4 mile drag and involved cornering, forget
>it. Your Impala can't handle excessive lateral Gs like the Boxster can.
>You'd be eaten alive.
>
>>
>>
>> >The fact that you're not bright enough to do it properly is not Linux's
>> >fault.
>>
>> In my case I used the Mandrake update CD they were kind enough to send
>> me. Click on Live-Update in Drakconf and away it goes as per the
>> instructions. Restart kde and it is completely dead, as is X and just
>> about everything else.
>>
>> So now what Einstein?
>
>If all of these posts about your bad Linux experiences are true, I wouldn't
>trust you to operate a toaster oven.
>
>How can one person be this incredibly dense and inept?
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Hint: download the src.rpm packages and rebuild on your system,
>> >or download packages that were built against your system. Duh!
>>
>>
>> Rebuild the system from scratch is more like it because it takes less
>> time to re-install.
>>
>> So much for Linux's package management.
>>
>> Flatfish
>> Why do they call it a flatfish?
>
>Because, when hooked to an electroencephalogram, you register a flat line?
>
>> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
>I'd rather talk to /dev/null, thank you <g>
Nice post, Tom.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Bob Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:05:02 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:57:41 +0000, David Dorward wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>> It's no wonder MSIE is winning when these f*cking clowns can't release
>>> a browser that makes it at least possible to [...]
>>Mozilla is BETA (or Alpha, I'm not sure). That means it isn't finished,
>>but what has been done is available for you to try if you so want.
> Yeah, like every browser available for Linux. That's the problem.
The congregation is *that* way, Donovan. It's a pity that such a find
platform suffers from a lack of quality applications. Linus seems to
have had the same thoughts (at least at one time), though.
- My concern is that the cooling of the Linux IPOs may push that day
further off when the needed ``critical mass'' and mindshare causes
both software and hardware companies place Linux in the first tier
for release.
- That being said, my initial experiences with the just downloaded Opera
browser (4.0b5, yeah it's beta) have been quite favorable. If this
thing holds up over extended use (and doesn't hang/crash on ESPN in
particular), some folks in over Norway may be ~$39.00 richer.
It may not be everything you're looking for at the moment, but it looks
like it may have ``potential''. Frankly, that's a word I'd like to use
a lot less often when dealing with what's available for Linux.
--
========================================================================
Bob Nelson -- Dallas, Texas, USA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Well...Unix, of course. Because Windows is a pathethic toy...
God bless Texas and our death penalty
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:09:34 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001
[...]
>> Well, if you didn't have your head in the sand, you'd notice that the
>> "wholesale migration to Windows NT Server has not yet been attempted".
>> Perhaps you're unwilling or unable to competently read press releases,
>> but this means that the reason they have not attempted the wholesale
>> migration is, indeed, because all of their pilot attempts to migrate
>> were massive disasters. Of course, even in 1998, they moved to NT *for
>> web servers*. The real work continues to this day to be done on Unix
>> boxes.
>
>But that's just it. The rumor (and the article which the rumor is founded
>on) claim that MS converted Hotmail to NT completely, but that it collapsed
>under the load and they had to go back to Unix.
I doubt that any article claimed that MS converted to NT "completely",
though I'll wager you could extract that sentiment. You aren't going to
find that I'm incredibly surprised to hear that reporting is subject to
hyperbole.
>That's not a "pilot attempt". The article claimed a wholesale conversion to
>NT that failed.
No, they claimed a concerted attempt at a conversion failed, I'll wager,
and you read the rest into it, or are pretending to, at least. Truth
is, it doesn't matter since the fact is they found that NT could not
replace Unix, and that is the point of the story.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:10:37 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 08 Jan 2001
[...]
>Is a "pilot attempt" similar to having a hand shoved up your sock puppet ass?
Well, its a startling way to realize that someone has been reading what
you've written, but thank you, anyway, Charlie.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:14:46 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001
21:14:42 -0600;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001
>> [...]
>> >The "bad press" you are referring to is about a different issue, which was
>> >saving Word 95 documents from Word 97, not loading Word 97 documents into
>> >Word 95.
>>
>> The only issue that anyone, besides yourself, has ever been addressing
>> is saving 95 documents from 97. You keep bringing up the other issue to
>> try to discombobulate and confuse the discussion; I imagine that's what
>> Microsoft's sock-puppet training says is the best approach.
>
>No, the issue was originally about how MS changes their formats to force
>users to upgrade. The Word97 filter for Word 95 flies in the face of that.
Which Word95 filter? The non-existent one, where you pretend that they
didn't purposefully modify the rtf filter to force upgrades, or the one
they released six months later, the native Word95 filter, which they had
withheld in order to force users to upgrade? I can't keep them
straight, amidst all your ranting.
>Why would they provide such a filter if they wanted people to upgrade?
Because they had been caught, and there was, after all, no technical
reason, nor any pro-competitive one, for them to leave it out in the
first place. So they waited a few months, and once their forced
bundling practices had ensured that all OEMs had been shipping the new
Office long enough to provide sufficient penetration to 'infect' the
majority of the large-scale installed base, it didn't matter anymore.
Thanks for asking.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:15:24 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 08 Jan 2001
03:18:22 GMT;
>In article <Bba66.266$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001
>>> [...]
>>> >The "bad press" you are referring to is about a different issue, which
>>was
>>> >saving Word 95 documents from Word 97, not loading Word 97 documents into
>>> >Word 95.
>>>
>>> The only issue that anyone, besides yourself, has ever been addressing
>>> is saving 95 documents from 97. You keep bringing up the other issue to
>>> try to discombobulate and confuse the discussion; I imagine that's what
>>> Microsoft's sock-puppet training says is the best approach.
>>
>>No, the issue was originally about how MS changes their formats to force
>>users to upgrade. The Word97 filter for Word 95 flies in the face of that.
>>Why would they provide such a filter if they wanted people to upgrade?
>>
>
>I think you've got it! "Sock-Puppet"!
>
>This is the only logical explanation for you EF.
>
>Your a tubular woven good with somebody's hand
>shoved up your ass.
That's not quite what I meant. <*giggle*>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:16:58 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Jan 2001 02:32:07
[...]
>> I suppose packaging has it's advantages. I suppose it come a matter of
>>personal taste really; I like to be in control, hence my DIY methods.
>
>I don't know why you think that src.rpm doesn't permit you to "DIY" or
>"be in control". [...]
What is this src.rpm you keep mentioning?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: 8 Jan 2001 04:23:18 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:16:58 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Jan 2001 02:32:07
> [...]
>>> I suppose packaging has it's advantages. I suppose it come a matter of
>>>personal taste really; I like to be in control, hence my DIY methods.
>>
>>I don't know why you think that src.rpm doesn't permit you to "DIY" or
>>"be in control". [...]
>
>What is this src.rpm you keep mentioning?
RPM includes a src package format. Basically, when you're done building an
RPM, you get a src.rpm which consists of the source tarball, the patches,
and a file (a "spec file") which contains all the information you need
to turn the source tarball into a binary rpm
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: 8 Jan 2001 04:26:24 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:39:51 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Richard Thrippleton in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 07 Jan 2001
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>Well, I'm hoping you're wrong, as I'm about one click away from buying a
>Linux desktop, and I'm getting the RedHat Deluxe package. Any good
>gouge on rpm would be much appreciated.
RH 7.0 is a POS (they shipped a bunch of alpha core components, such as gcc
and glibc).
Go with RH 6.2, or better, Mandrake 7.2 (which is like an updated version
of RH 6.2)
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Jan 2001 05:21:52 +1100
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Why do you Linux zealots insist making analogies toward motor vehicles.
>I can honestly say in your car related comparison I HAVE NO F***ING IDEA
>WHAT YOU SAID.
Think about it... 1973 VW Superbeetle. Also known as The Bug. Obviously
a rather outdated, though much beloved car. If you don't know that it
has an air-cooled engine in the back, rather than the usual water-cooled
engine in the front, you are lacking cultural knowledge. Herbie the Love
Bug, you know.
Compare to that the McLaren F1 (as in "Formula 1") car-like contraptions.
They have 4 wheels, and a steering wheel. That's about as much as they
have in common with the 1973 Beetle. And even those similarities are
only superficial --- you don't have to (and can't) remove the steering
wheel in a 1973 to get into and out of it (now, grabbing the seatbelt
*before* you close the door is a different matter :-).
I know how to drive my Beetle (a 1975 model). I know how it behaves,
how well it can accellerate, how quickly it can stop, when I need to
change gears, how to overcome the rare problem where it won't get into
reverse, and so on. In short, I know how to drive this car. Heck, recently
I even learned how to hotwire it, out of necessity....
Put me into a McLaren F1, and I won't have a clue. I probably wouldn't
even know where to put my feet, or how to start the thing. Put the
McLaren drivers into my Beetle, and they won't be any good driving it ---
they don't know just how high above the ground the center of gravity is,
and thus how quickly one can take it around a corner without risking
flipping over.
In the same way, some people used to one OS have problems when using another.
That shouldn't come as a surprise, nor does it say anything about the
quality of either OS. It just means that if you are not willing to put
in the time to get familiar with a new thing, stay with the old one.
Cars and OSs alike.
Bernie
--
In politics it is more blessed not to take than to give
Enoch Powell
British Conservative politician
Daily Telegraph, 31 January 1964
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Jan 2001 05:23:56 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 7 Jan 2001 06:12:22 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I have an IBM PS/2 Model 85, with 128M of memory, a couple of SCSI disks,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>an ethernet card, and an SVGA card. Disk and graphics card are original
>>IBM, ethernet is a 3COM, IIRC.
>Say no more.
So it's normal that Win98 won't properly reboot on original IBM hardware?
Did I mention that Linux doesn't seem to have this problem on the very
same machine?
Bernie
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means
government by the badly educated
G.K. Chesterton
New York Times, 1 February 1931
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Jan 2001 05:31:24 +1100
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Microsoft Windows 98 (First Edition) and ACPI "restore status" is a known
>issue with Windows 98 and ACPI systems.
I would be very surprised of the PS/2 Model85 has anything even remotely
resembling ACPI.
>You may wish to upgrade your OS to Microsoft Windows 2000. A costly
>upgrade. Windows Me is cheaper, but the Win32 core may still retain the
>ACPI bugs.
Uhm, I am not going to spend $$$ on an OS upgrade for a machine that cose
me about US$12 to buy. Sorry, but that would be silly!
>IBM May also have a more ACPI compliant BIOS available for your lappy.
>Or, you can install Linux on this machine, and bypass your ACPI problems
>alltogather. No ACPI support, No problem!
Of course, Kyle, describing the PS/2 Model85 as a "lappy" is kind of,
uhm, revealing. The power supply alone is bigger than many desktop
systems you can buy today. The thing comes in a Big Tower that deserves
the capitalization. The keyboard alone weighs over 2kg.
Also, I have to wonder --- even *if* the problem was ACPI related (which
obviously it is not), why would booting into safe mode and immediately
rebooting fix it?
Bernie
--
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change amid order
Alfred North Whitehead
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:46:22 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nick Condon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 09:27:07 +0000
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >> WIN32 isn't always changing. It's being extended.
> >
> >He also wrote:
> >> In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API is always changing
> >
> >So which is it?
> >
> >An API is an Applications Programming Interface, if you stop to think for
one
> >second before posting you will realise that an interface that is always
> >changing defeats the entire purpose of defining an interface.
>
> It also defeats the guys out there who are trying to crack it :-).
Forget cracking it. Just legitimately trying to develop applications with it
is difficult enough.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
