Linux-Advocacy Digest #342, Volume #31 Mon, 8 Jan 01 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Terry Porter)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
DWEEBS (Zed Meek)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Could only... (Bones)
Re: Could only... (Bones)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Bones)
Re: Need help with NT (Bones)
Re: Uptimes (Bones)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 Jan 2001 02:37:42 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:36:52 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:28:48 +0000, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I've finally finished upgrading my Linux box to Mandrake7.2!
>>
>>How long did that take you?
>
>>> Good one Mandrake, worth every penny, and once again showing Linux *has*
>>> the EDGE!
>>
>>What edge? I can't see anything on Linux running faster than on Windows.
>>Response on X seems sluggish at times.
>
>
>It has the edge compared to Win95A the last version of Windows that
>Porter has run, by his own admission.
Its true too. I've been of the Windows *upgrade waggon* since 1997, and
it feels **GOOD** :)
My wallet also feels good. How much has the endless upgrade cycle cost you
"Steve" ?
>
>I find X to be very sluggish at times even with a Matrox G200 or G400
>and 8 meg running 1024x768 and 32bpp.
I find it resourcefull everytime I do remote GUI.
>
>I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
>application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
I dont see Win2k doing remote GUI ?
>Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
>
>Starting StarOffice? Go get a cup of coffee.
I dont use bloatware, Lyx starts in about 3 seconds, non cached!
>MusicMatch Jukebox? Same thing. Sugar and milk please.
In your case its aluminium hydroxide and milk, anonymous wintroll.
>I use Wordperfect Office 2k under Win2k and it is up and running in 3
>seconds. StarOffice is still churning away 15 seconds later.
So dont use it ?
Keep paying for Wordperfect ?
>
>
>>Applications are the usual hotch potch of half-beta-test and broken bits
>>and pieces (for those of you out there about to lynch me forf saying this -
>>this is HYPERBOLE. Apparently some of you can't recognise it).
>
>They call this "streamlined" or "not bloated" but what it amounts to
>is featureless and crude.
Simple emotional terms from the Troll Boy.
>
>>The basics are there but there's more work to be done to be "the Edge"
>>compared to the desktop on Windows.
>
>It's like the edge on a razor blade after you have chopped concrete
>with it for an hour. Linux that is...
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
Because "Steve/Heather/Amy/Keys88/Flatfish... etc" is a bottom dwelling
scum eater ?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:40:18 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3NP56.39$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:24L56.56134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:1_q56.9004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Note that Microsoft did not offer these until AFTER forcing
> > > > all competing WYSIWYG editors out of the market.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? When Office 97 was released (in 1996) it
> > > included the filter so that Word 95 could read Office 97 documents on
> the
> > CD
> > > (as well as a free download).
> >
> > I don't remember that as being the case in the original release and I
know
> > the download either wasn't available or wasn't publicized until many
> > months after it was needed because everyone I know was literally forced
> > to upgrade from word95 for no reason other than to be able to read
> > the attachments being sent by people who bought new PC's with
> > Word97 pre-installed. Even if the 97 CD did contain a filter, I don't
> > see how that helps the people who have word95 and obviously don't
> > have a copy of the 97 CD.
>
> I got my release of Office 97 throught the MSDN about a month before it
was
> available on the shelves. It was on the CD, because I used it. That CD
was
> exactly the same as the retail version which I got with a new PC at work
> shortly after it was officially released.
>
> I also downloaded the file from MS's office site on 3 different machines 2
> weeks before 97 was released, since I was using Office 97 document format
on
> one machine (My home machine) and needed to use it at work and didn't have
> the Office 97 MSDN cd with me.
Seems odd that you were the only one who knew where to find this....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:54:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I need some help. I try compiling a kernel, completely stripped down with
> > only the necessary stuff I need for my comp, and I always use modules when
> > available, yet I cannot get a kernel smaller than 1.4 Meg. I even tryed
> > compiling as 'make Image' and 'make bzImage' yet both were EXACTLY the same
> > size in bytes. A kernel that size will not go into my MBR, and lilo gives a
> > fatal error when trying to install it. I am using kernel 2.4-a3. Any ideas on
> > how I can get a kernel that size into lilo to boot, or why I am getting
> > kernels that size. BTW, I tried creating a symlink to the image and have lilo
> > load the symlink, but the symlink is just as big as the image itself. Please,
> > I know SOMEONE can help. I know this is probably the wrong board to post this
> > to, but I keep getting an error on the other Linux boards.
>
> Are you sure you got the right file? It's located in
> /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot and it's named bzImage. DO NOT use
> /usr/src/linux/vmlinux or /usr/src/linux/vmlinuz - these are NOT the files
> you need.
>
> --
> SwifT
That clears up quite a bit. Thanks. So, what is vmlinuz?
C Pungent
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:17:16 GMT
In <93ck84$g3n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) writes:
>In article <3a591ac4$19$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In <93anlp$dik$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/07/2001
>> at 04:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>>
>>>Eh??? I sometimes use Kedit under OS/2, and it appears to me to be a
>>>rather good Xedit clone. Are we thinking about the same product? Or
>>>has Xedit advanced significantly since I last used it (maybe 8 years
>>>ago), leaving Kedit in the dust?
>
>>No, KEDIT was missing key XEDIT functionality from day one. I never
>>could convince Mansfiled to add the missing pieces, so I will probably
>>wind up with THE one of these days.
>
>What functionality is that? I don't use Kedit that heavily, so I
>just may not have noticed.
http://www.rexswain.com/kedit.html#kedxed
(some nice stuff about APL2, too)
--
h�rad �ngravv�d
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:07:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:53:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >I need some help. I try compiling a kernel, completely stripped down with
> > >only the necessary stuff I need for my comp, and I always use modules
> > >when
> >
> > Welcome to Linsux!!
> >
> > You mean the simple make makedep make install didn't work properly?
> >
> > Oh my gosh this can't be?
> >
> > I mean Linsux is perfect is it not?
> >
> > ****Sarcasm on****************
> >
> > It worked fine for me.
> > You must be an idiot.
> >
> > *****Sarcasm Off*****
> > Flatfish
> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
>
> Because youre a flathead.
> Even if building a kernel for linux results in total failure, it is still
> way better than the kernel-build you can do yourself (take whatever
> win-version you wish)
>
> >
By the way, it was MY error, not linux's fault, as is every problem i've even
had. MY FAULT, NOT LINUX. Is that clear enough for you, wintroll? I usually
don't bother with assholes like you. But, don't come to MY forum and tell ME
that Linux sucks because you can't get it to work and you blame Linux, not
yrself. Go back to yr blu screens, you pathetic waste of sperm and eggs. I'm
done with talking to braindead pricks like you. C Pungent
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:39:07 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mSu66.56937$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3NP56.39$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:24L56.56134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:1_q56.9004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > Note that Microsoft did not offer these until AFTER forcing
> > > > > all competing WYSIWYG editors out of the market.
> > > >
> > > > What are you talking about? When Office 97 was released (in 1996)
it
> > > > included the filter so that Word 95 could read Office 97 documents
on
> > the
> > > CD
> > > > (as well as a free download).
> > >
> > > I don't remember that as being the case in the original release and I
> know
> > > the download either wasn't available or wasn't publicized until many
> > > months after it was needed because everyone I know was literally
forced
> > > to upgrade from word95 for no reason other than to be able to read
> > > the attachments being sent by people who bought new PC's with
> > > Word97 pre-installed. Even if the 97 CD did contain a filter, I
don't
> > > see how that helps the people who have word95 and obviously don't
> > > have a copy of the 97 CD.
> >
> > I got my release of Office 97 throught the MSDN about a month before it
> was
> > available on the shelves. It was on the CD, because I used it. That CD
> was
> > exactly the same as the retail version which I got with a new PC at work
> > shortly after it was officially released.
> >
> > I also downloaded the file from MS's office site on 3 different machines
2
> > weeks before 97 was released, since I was using Office 97 document
format
> on
> > one machine (My home machine) and needed to use it at work and didn't
have
> > the Office 97 MSDN cd with me.
>
> Seems odd that you were the only one who knew where to find this....
All you had to do was look on the Office site.
------------------------------
From: Zed Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DWEEBS
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:36:11 GMT
One of you dweebs got me fired from NCSU
ill get you for this you ghetto freaks!!
--
"lots of white guys died to free the slaves
and their relatves are no shot at by black guys with guns
aint america great?" - me
Nigger Control Expert for #Linuxwarez @EFNet
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:57:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terry Porter wrote:
I was just flying over in my Potato noticed something down and
to my 3 and read this message.
>On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:28:48 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I've finally finished upgrading my Linux box to Mandrake7.2!
>>
>>How long did that take you?
>Each install took about 3/4 hr I suppose, but I redid the
>install from scratch
>several times and tried a few different things, including the Reisfer File
>System (journalled) which I'm now using.
>
>>
>>> Now I always kept my old system fairly up to date, but the new Mandrake
>>> is amazingly easy to install, and I must admit things have improved a
>>> lot since Redhat 4.2!
>>
>>It is an amazing package to install, but annoying when you try to be
>>selective in what you install. I installed KDE 2.0 but because I didn't
>>setup my modem, pppd wasn't installed! Luckily, it was easy to install that
>>afterwards but, as Home Simpson would say - "D'oh!".
>I run a old 486dx50 Linux single floppy router, so I didnt need to use PPP.
>
>>
>>> I think you could probably, pop the cd in your pc and boot from it,
>>> select "standard install" and simply go away after youve anwered the
>>> relevant questions about internet connection, printer type etc. During
>>> the install, the CD opens automaticaly and the installer asks you for
>>> the second CD. Neat.
>>
>>Previous versions of Mandrake (7.0 I seem to remember) had problems asking
>>for the CD.
>This is the first Mandrake I've ever used.
>
>>
>>> Xfree86 was a total breeze, my ISA NIC card autoprobed perfectly, so did
>>> my ISA soundcard. PCI video card was picked up straight away.
>>
>>Since my sound card is only supported by a non-free driver and KDE 2.0
>>froze last time I tried it, this is still broken.
>My sound card is a $20 el cheapo, pci ess1688 I think.
>
>>
>>> Oh its also WAY faster.
>>>
>>> Good one Mandrake, worth every penny, and once again showing Linux *has*
>>> the EDGE!
>>
>>What edge? I can't see anything on Linux running faster than on Windows.
>The Free Software edge of course.
>
>>Response on X seems sluggish at times.
>X does so much more than Windows tho, theyre NOT the same.
>
Geeze. X slow. Not my X. I run Debian.
>>
>>Applications are the usual hotch potch of half-beta-test and broken bits
>>and pieces (for those of you out there about to lynch me forf saying this -
>>this is HYPERBOLE. Apparently some of you can't recognise it).
>Hyperbola.] (Rhet.)
> A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident
> exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by
> which things are represented as much greater or less, better
> or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated
> fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.
>
>Then excuse us if we ignore your exaggeration ?
>
>>
>>The basics are there but there's more work to be done to be "the Edge"
>>compared to the desktop on Windows.
>Not to me. Imho Windows cant hack it, lacks resources, stability, and is *
>closed software*.
>
>Thats why I havent used Windows since 1997. Linux supplies all my software
>needs, and life without buggy Windows software, really has to be tried to be
>believed.
>
>I'm a believer.
>>
>>--
>>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>>
I'm sitting here with 2.2R2 Debian {Potato} installed and listening to
some Simon & Garfunkle on my SB Live card - Mrs. Robinson....
The difference between Debian and Windows is best compared said as
the difference between an F15 and a Greyhound bus.
Then when you realize that Debian your using was downloaded over the net
with a floppy or two as an assistant, you wonder why anybody is so stupid
as to run Windows.
I can be playing my Napster, downloading ftp from 3 sites, compiling a kernel
have a spreadsheet open, a word document open, and by typing this message back
and this thing just doesn't skip a beat. You can't even dream of doing shit
like this with Windows.
If every business in North America were running Debian we would have far fewer
problems with distributed procesing power that we currently do with Windows,
we would have far less licensing problems, we would have far less problems
period.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:06:31 GMT
> I couldn't sort out this quoting mess, but...
> We even have a new felony law which states if you travel more than 1/4 mile
> from the red lights of a police vehicle OR you turn off on another street or
> exit a highway while being followed by a police vehicle with it's red's on,
> you are automatically guilty of a felony. Not seeing the lights is no
> excuse.
How about if two of your wheels fall off and you can't help but swerve onto
the exit ramp?
There is no such thing as "automatic guilt" or an "automatic felony" in the
US legal system. Merely being arrested is not evidence of a crime, as any
law-abiding judge will tell his/her jurors before a trial. If this is indeed
happening in your state, I suggest collecting some large donations and
hiring some lawyers to take this matter to a higher court.
My two cents.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:06:31 GMT
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JM wrote:
> I thought we were talking about guns? Obviously not...
I though we were talking about Linux? Obviously not... When we post off-topic,
anything goes. (At least this isn't cross-posted, one outta two ain't bad)
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:06:32 GMT
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Don't be quite so cynical even if it comes naturally from prior
>> experience with MS products. Win2k really does have some of
>> the long-missing command line functionality filled in but for some
>> reason nobody knows anything about it.
Even if you're UNIX hardcore, you could just run Bash under NT, as well as a
host of UNIX-like CLI utilties that work with it.
----
Bones
(selects non-crossposting option)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Need help with NT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:06:32 GMT
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[snip]
> Not even. I spent 3 days trying to get a 6.2 based firewall to work.
> Finally I ended wiping it and installing FreeBSD. I later learned there
> was some kind of bug in 6.2 in regards to two network cards in the same
> machine.
Is that a bug or just an oversight? I did a firewall with a Slackware
machine this past year, and the modifications to the conf-mods file were
stated pretty clearly in the HOW-TOs ( Ethernet-HOWTO, Section 3.2 ). I
therefore did not experience this problem. You should read the docs extra
carefully. I hope you had upgraded to at least kernel 2.2.16, but that's a
moot point, isn't it?
However, I commend you on your choice of an alternative.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:06:33 GMT
> In article <uaaeYSYeAHA.328@cpmsnbbsa09>, tony roth wrote:
> ...and in three years not one server has bsod nor gone to 100% utilization
> without due cause. We have over 2k+ workstations and once again no bsods
> and no 100% utilization problems.
I'm sitting here trying to image what the "due cause" is for a server
BSOD-ing or suddenly jumping to 100% utilization...
I have two NT SP6 boxes that I watch over. I'm also no fan of NT. Anyway,
I've only seen them choke only a handful of times since I took over their
maintenance full-time a year ago.
I've had mysterious jumps to 100% utilization a couple of times; traced it
back to IE4 not completely terminating. Kill the task, no big deal. I don't
think I've experienced the same problem you folks are kicking around in this
thread though.
I've also had two incidents where logon services choked. One machine BSOD-ed
after a restart and destroyed its filesystem, the other simply came back up
OK. (These incidents happened over a year apart from each other)
I've also had NT boxen BSOD on a restart after changing swap file settings,
but no permanent damage done. All in all I'd give the boxes a B- for
reliability; OK, but not great. I'm also very picky about how they are
configured. The admins before me were subpar, so the NT machines'
reliability have improved greatly with my coddling (pat pat).
Although I'd be hard-pressed (understated) to admit that NT is
super-reliable or easy to maintain, I will definitely support the notion
that the admin makes a huge difference.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: 9 Jan 2001 04:06:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
>>application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
> I dont see Win2k doing remote GUI ?
It does, see Terminal Server Client [sic]; but it is prohibitavely
expensive for most.
And its a terrible, insecure, hog of a proprietary transport.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
