Linux-Advocacy Digest #455, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Mike")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:02:09 +0000
I have two PC's. One is a 400MHz P-II with 128 MBytes of RAM, and is dual
bootable between Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.2
The second PC is a 166MHz P-I with 32 MByte of RAM. I wanted this one to be
a file server. It originally had 2x2GBytes of IDE, plus 3GBytes of SCSI
disk space. 7 GBytes on a file server is a bit low, so I ordered a 30GByte
drive.
I had to also order a new EIDE controller (as the PC only has IDE), and
ordered a CDRW as well, as the backup device. Why a CD writer? Why not a
tape drive? Well, tapes can only be read on the one machine; CDROMs can be
read anywhere since they are now so popular. CDROMs are random access
whilst tapes are serial. Tapes can have much larger capacity, and can be
reused, whilst CDR can't be (although CDRW can).
This is for home backups, so I don't need the tape drive. CDROMs are easier
to use, and they're cheap and permanent.
Did I check any of these things would be supported by Linux? No, I didn't.
As it turned out, they all work fine with Linux...
Now, onto the new setup.
I put the new drive onto the new ATA100 bus along with the CDRW drive.
Unfortunately there are no MSDOS drivers for the CDRW in this
configuration. Linux can boot and read this setup, so I tried to use it,
through several installations:
First Installation
==================
TCP/IP was broken. Everything was correct but I could not ping my other
machine, and likewise from the other machine. I could write a CDR OK.
Second Installation
===================
TCP/IP was working, however, Linuxconf could not configure my system for
me, so I was unable to get TELNETD, NFSD or SMBD working. I could run SMB
directly with /etc/rc.d/init.d/smb start but not at boot up. TELNETD
appeared not be installed.
Third Installation
==================
I deliberately installed KDE/GNOME so I could run linuxconf on X. TCP/IP
was working but a previously working script for Samba is now broken. NFS
still dead and no TELNET - despite the fact I made sure it was ticked when
I installed everything.
Fourth Installation
===================
I read all the documentation on the Promise ULTRA100 controller and
realised it did not support the generic ATAPI CDROM driver for MSDOS. So, I
have a catch-22 for Windows. I can run a CDROM with Windows, but not with
MSDOS. So, I can't install Windows.
I put my old CDROM back in alongside the new drive and that gave me a CDROM
with MSDOS. Bizarre. Linux could see both new drives (named them /dev/hde
and /dev/hdg). Promise don't supply a driver for MSDOS that gets access for
a CDROM.
Once Windows boots up, it starts with the C: in MSDOS compatability mode. I
installed the Promise drivers and the drive went to 32 bit mode, and the
CDRW appeared. Hmmm... Linux installed these without blinking.
Writing a CD worked fine with Windows Millenium, no suprise there.
The only snag with this setup is the lack of remote access to the PC. I
have to access the desktop to do anything. Remote file access is possible,
but I can reboot or run the CD burner remotely. I can live with that for
now.
Conclusions
===========
Linux Mandrake is a very nice package for someone who doesn't want to get
into the bowels of UNIX style configuration... but falls apart if you want
to do something other than install everything. I don't really see the point
in installing a GUI on a machine that'll be used as a file server. I'd
rather log into it remotely, rather than locally - hence the interest in
Linux. However, Linux Mandrake made it difficult to install consistantly,
something I'd noticed before.
Now, I can see the reactions of people already:
(i) This is a typical Windows luser who couldn't find his ass in an ass
kicking contest. He should stick to Windows.
(ii) This guy is an idiot (a stronger version of this: "This guy is a
shithead Wintroll").
(iii) This guy has been so brainwashed by Microsoft that he can't do
anything without a Wizard.
(iv) This guy is making all this up. He's a marketing drone being paid by
Microsoft to spread FUD about Linux, in an effort to prevent Microsoft from
failing.
(v) We don't care about any problems he's having. They're all fake anyway.
(vi) This is a typical Windows moron who reinstalls when things don't work
properly.
What's my answer to any of these points?
I'm none of the above. Of course, I don't expect some to agree with me.
These are the Linux zealots, or bigots, who seem to take an agressive
stance, disparaging anything good coming from Windows, and sure in the
knowledge that anything Free Software is Good and is going to defeat the
evil empire, Microsoft. To them I would say: good luck. With your attitude,
Linux will remain where it is, and might even decline.
Then there a few voices here who are prepared to listen to what I say, to
hear me out, and they're the ones who seem able to appreciate what I have
to say. They are very few, but they are here. These are the ones who will
make Linux into the bigger and better system, and start to defeat Microsoft.
Incidentally, I don't need to defeat Microsoft. I'm quite happy for them to
exist. They would do well to stop the shennanigans they've been accused of,
but what do I know?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:00:34 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> > >
> > > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> > > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> > > consider it?
> >
> > Here's a better question: OS-X is Unix-based, and the Mac OS-X GUI
provides
> > a blueprint for anyone wanting to copy it. There are lots of good
reasons to
> > want to put the Mac GUI on Linux, especially if your goal is to take
over
> > the world. So, if there was a Mac-compatible API on Unix, so that a Mac
> > application only had to be recompiled to run on Unix instead of OS-X,
would
> > that provide the base for Unix to start making inroads onto the desktop?
> > Would Mac developers start porting applications to a platform that
expects
> > software to be free? Would open source developers start writing Mac API
> > compatible applications, that could be recompiled and run on an Apple
Mac?
> >
> > Know what I think? I think I'm just restating your question... Am I
right?
>
> Yea, sure, eliminate all my subtlety and be explicit! (yes, this is sort
> of my point.)
A similar thread came up on CSMA a few weeks ago, and as I recall the
general opinion from the Mac users was that this wouldn't be a problem for
Apple. I think they're wrong... Apple hardware is still limited and more
expensive, and if the same interface and applications were available on
cheaper faster hardware, I suspect lots of folks would switch. Even if a
Dell machine isn't as sexy as a cube, it's faster, cheaper, and expandable.
Hard to resist.
My assertion in the CSMA discussion was that by providing a blueprint for
someone porting the Mac GUI to Unix, Apple is taking a big risk. For all
that some folks here don't like a GUI interface, desktop acceptance requires
it, and having a second platform available would seem to be a huge benefit
to Mac developers.
I think all of this would be really bad for Apple, who would be left
wondering how to generate $7 billion in replacement business while competing
with cheaper hardware and free software.
On the other hand, it might be really good for the Unix folks, who now have
umpteen incompatible GUIs, and their associated APIs, all competing with
each other. I'm still convinced that a prerequisite for desktop acceptance
is a common, unified GUI. I thought Sun might be able to push that with
their acceptance of Gnome, but Sun's had mixed success at driving standards
in the Unix world, and no success with user environments. So, maybe the open
source community and a few application companies can drive a new standard
around the Mac GUI.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:00:37 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:y%486.176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:oB486.57854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a
> > file,
> > > read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the
FPU..
> > see
> > > if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the
data
> > for
> > > your native file format? That makes no sense.
> >
> > It makes sense to everyone who expects to use more than one computer
> > in their lifetime, especially if they are unwilling to let a software
> > company take away their choices for their next one.
> >
> > > The only way the formats can be identical on both platforms is if one
> > > platform stores their data in the other platforms format.
> >
> > Or if both (and others) followed a standard, a concept that is alien
> > to Microsoft.
>
> Can't you just, for one minute, stop thinking about how the computer
> industry works today and think about how it worked 10-15 years ago when
> these formats were created? There was no interoperability then, it wasn't
> an issue. This is just the result of legacy code.
10-15 years ago there was already a long history of wildly different
CPU types with variations in word size and bit/byte ordering - and
unix already ran on most of them with interchangeable data files.
You can't pretend that the lock-in that the Microsoft file formats
caused was not intentional - unless you want to claim that they
were complete idiots, unaware of the rest of the industry or even
the Macintosh.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:03:40 +0000
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Telnet to non-root accounts should be working fine, if your network
> is functional.
Telnet nor telnetd were installed, despite my selecting them in the
installation.
> As for NFS -- that requires a bit of setup. At the very least,
> you'll have to edit /etc/exports -- or use linuxconf to do it
> for you, perhaps (I don't know offhand; I'm a tad old-fasioned :-) ).
I setup exports and I ran linuxconf. Remote system reported "Permission
denied", so I checked access to the directories. Everything seemed fine.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:02:51 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:14:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:24:03 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Beyond attempting to confuse low level wire protocols with something
>> that an application level facility should muck about with, you
>> really haven't demonstrated anything.
>
>You must sit for hours conjuring up statements that are circular,
>never address the point and rarely provide a solution other than "it
>works for me".
Well, if it works in one's own experience there really isn't
a basis for one to hand out curative advice now is there?
You make less and less sense over time.
[deletia]
The obvious question is what is so different about your
configuration that magically makes what works for me
(and others) work for you. There is also your own rather
obvious agenda to consider.
This is why no one should take anything you have to say on
the subject at all seriously.
Mebbe if someone slapped you over the head with a print copy
of the OSI network model for awhile that might give you a
better appreciation for abstraction and modularity... '-pp
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:06:17 +0000
sfcybear wrote:
> For all I know, judging by your past performance, you were looking at
> the wrong hub.
There are only two hubs in my house. A USB one and a network one. The only
one that flashes is the network one.
> And I am explaining that you do not know what you are doing and refuse
> to get help. That is not a Linux problem.
I should not need to get help - I ran the installation as I did before.
That should work, shouldn't it?
> > Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
> From your posts, this is hard to beleive.
Fine. You want to believe what you like, go ahead.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:07:19 +0000
sfcybear wrote:
> So what? you post from Linux, but that's not a big deal. Your lack of
> skills, and complete refusal to look in the appropreate places for help
> shows that you are just a lump of coal in my opinion. If you were
> running mandrake correctly and looked in the right places for help, you
> would have found the stupid mistakes you made and would not need to post
> your miss-conceptions here.
Lack of skills?
Running Mandrake correctly?
What are you talking about?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:08:08 +0000
sfcybear wrote:
> And I'm just posting how incompitant you are.
And I'm just pointing out your spelling!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:02 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:11:57 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> In computer science that is generally refered to abstraction
>> and modularity. There is no good reason why xfree should need
>> bother with the internal details of a particular wire protocol.
>
>Well, maybe it should, the autoprobing mechanisim it FEATURES isn't working
>properly.
Nope. It fetches all of the PCI details just fine.
>
>> A USB mouse can even be set up at the kernel level to appear as
>> /dev/psaux if the distributor is so inclined.
>
>Forget the distributor, how about ME? Yes, I can activate legacy support in
>my BIOS for USB mice & keyboards, but it sort of kills the point of OS level
>USB support, doesn't it?
You obviously have so little of a clue as to what is going on
in this discussion that you can't even comprehend the simplest
of the jargon being used.
Go harass a kindergarten somewhere.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:08:08 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:16:08 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:93m7ef$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >I own a USB mouse. I like my USB mouse. Optical mice only come in USB,
>and
>> >I don't see a need for the USB-ps/2 converter. The kernel supports USB,
>GPM
>>
>> Are you speaking of some dongle or the that bit of the kernel
>> that makes the first USB mouse appear as a psaux device?
>
>No, I'm refering that I don't see why I should use the converter peice for
>my USB mouse, when the Linux KERNEL NOW supports USB, and XFree86 allegadly
Why not? What does it really harm you?
>supports USB mice. GPM also claims this functionality. But only GPM seems
>to have found this component.
Oddly enough, I've never had that problem. This includes several
versions of Xfree 3.3, Xfree 4.0, more than one distribution,
several distro versions, as well as various development kernel
versions.
>
>> So? It's simply not necessary for that functionality to be
>> replicated yet again.
>
>Could have fooled me. Seeing as how it's not working NOW as it (XFree86)
>stands, I think the functionality SHOULD be duplicated. Not all systems
>have GPM, and bothering to institute autoprobe in XFree86 means it should
>AUTOPROBE everything. Not just find my monitor and video card, and to hell
Why replicate work?
Beyond "it's gotta", you've never really addressed that.
>with EVERYTHING else. God, I hate to even THINK what the autoprobe does to
>people without PNP monitors.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
