Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. ("Bartek Kostrzewa")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (.)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (.)
Re: Windows Stability
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Craig Kelley)
Re: You and Microsoft...
Re: You and Microsoft...
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (J Sloan)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:38:24 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:9fns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you count poor
3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case Linux has even
more problems there).
The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified software
is also a red herring. Software doesn't have to be certified to run
flawlessly. I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
certify to save money.
------------------------------
From: "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:33:50 +0100
I'm a fellow Linux user, so this is not something against Linux, rather
against our tax system here in Luxembourg.
Why does an economically nice solution like a stock-hardware, Linux based
Server (in this case for Fileserver use) lose against a Win2k Server +
Compaq hardware?
My friend's father has a small company, he asked me to give him a proposal
for a file server (serving 8 computers with 500MB/day/PC), so I built a
server for 1500$ with SCSI, AMD Duron 750, 256 MB of RAM and a 100 Mbit NIC,
of course, I told him I'd install Linux and set up SAMBA for file serving
(the company is 100% M$ based). When he heard the price he said: "What?
That's far too cheap! I need to spend at least 7500$ on it, so I can reduce
my tax charges at the end of the year!" Now he bought a Win2k Server based
Compaq Proline server powered by an 933Mhz PIII, 256MB of RDRAM and 60GB
RAID-10 (4 30GB 10K rpm SCSI harddrives in RAID mode, stripped and imaged
together).... and that for 8 computer low-profile file-sharing.
Even with the maximum service option possible (RedHat) the Linux-based
soultion wouldn't have cost enough...
As you see, Luxembourg's taxing logic is pretty hard to understand, you have
to invest tons of money into your businness, so the state can't take "extra"
taxes at the end of the year...
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:18:15 GMT
"Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just because there's some brave souls out there doesn't mean
> > that the Linux community is about to say: "Linux is enterprise
> > ready, and we have an enterprise OS called "ReiserFS", it's
> > good enough to run NASDAQ without worry of fault".
>
> Well, true. That very much unlike the situation with Windows. The
> Windows approach is that "when the next version is released Windows
> will be more enterprise ready than ever". And that's how itīs been
> since Windows 3.0.
Windows 3.0 is a client OS, so is 95, 98, Me, 2000 Professional, etc.
We're not talking about client OS, we're talking about server OS.
NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server
have all proven themselves in the enterprise and have what it takes
in terms of performance, security, reliability, and scalability.
Linux has none of these.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:33:07 GMT
Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <JTf86.33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> Something like Quartz could be substituted for the X11
>>> based system without much trouble.
>> You're crazy. All existing GUI apps would not work with Quartz because the
>> existing apps use sockets to connect to the GUI.
> Not necessarily. It's quite easy to run apps built against one window
> manager's ( or "desktop environment's") API inside another wm by just having
> the correct libraries installed. For example, I have no trouble running
> something like GnoRPM under FVWM2 as long as the Gnome libraries are
> installed.
Alright look. There are a few things that all of you need to get straight:
Quartz is not a "window manager".
OSX is not BSD.
OSX is loosely based on BSD (as was OpenStep and NeXTStep before it), but its
kernel is utterly different, its filesystem can be totally unrelated, and the
way it handles socketing and network issues is very, very different.
> I also see in this thread that someone mentioned that Quartz was build on
> top of X. Assuming that this is true (I know very little about Quartz),
It isnt true at all.
> then
> this whole discussion is irrelevant, since Quartz would *not* be a
> replacement for X, it would be just another wm. Of course it could be a
> heavily modified version of X underneath...
It isnt even that.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:34:11 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CSf86.32$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> > >> The Debian install dials the phone, and the download takes
> > >> over night. If the phone line disconnects it redials
> > >> and apt-get restarts where it left off.
> > >>
> > >> It's totally hands free and it doesn't miss a single bit.
> > >
> > >Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were
connecting
> at
> > >speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
> > >there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
> > >that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours.
> Even
> > >a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27
hours,
> or
> > >more than a day. Not "overnight".
> >
> > Total Bullcrap EF. They do!
> >
> > 56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
>
> Ok charlie, you've just completely shot your credibility on this story
(your
> credibility is shot anyways, but on this story you're lying).
>
> 56K doesn't work with fiber lines. 56K works only on copper connected
> directly to a CO because it takes advantage of the lack of analog to
digital
> conversion. If you've got fiber between you and the CO, you get multiple
> A/D conversions and it totally screws your ability to get more than 33.6.
I thought the restriction was that one end had to be directly on a digital
line (usually the answering modem) and the rest depends on the
quality of the analog signal. You get one A/D conversion going on
fiber but there is no reason for it to ever go back to analog.
Besides, you seem to have forgotten that 56K modems have V.42biz
compression so even if you get the 33.6 connection your throughput
can easily average 4x that on uncompressed material. It boils down
to not being a real problem to grab an iso image as long as your
ftp client knows how to restart and you can let it run a few nights.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:40:55 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <MrK76.1164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
> > > >> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
> > > >interchangeable.
> > > >>
> > > >> What about Word98?
> > > >
> > > >Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
> > formats.
> > >
> > > Funny but just 3 days ago you said that Word 2000 and Word 98 were
> > compatible
> > > formats. You said there were NO incompatible Word formats in this
series.
> >
> > No, I said Word 2000 and Word 97 were compatible. Wake up and pay
> > attention.
> >
> > > Now this.
> > >
> > > Again! How much proof from the MANS OWN WORDS do we need before we
> > > just stamp "DUMBSHIT" across his forehead and cut this man loose.
> >
> > You're the dumbshit that can't even keep an argument straight.
> >
> > > Does anybody listen to this idiot?
> >
> > Clearly you don't listen to anyone.
> So everyone who jumped on the bandwagon and converted from Word97 to
> Word98 are screwed and now have to convert to Word2000 format? How many
> Word formats are there?
What the hell are you talking about? Word 98 is the *MAC* version. Word 97
is the PC version as is Word 2000. Nobody "jumped on the bandwagon" and
converted to Word 98 unless they also converted to Macintosh, in which case
they're not going to be converting back.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:20:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:3rns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <usj86.2348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
> >> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>
> Why do I feel this is just a downright lie?
>
> > Bottom Line:
> >
> > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
> > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
> > tasks.
>
> Strewth, are we living on the same planet? Linux has proven that it is
> enterprise ready.
Not really. Scalability is an issue, and still is. Performance is an issue
especially with the brain-dead ext2 filesystem. There is no enterprise-level
journaling large-file-capable filesystem for Linux (except for a few beta ones).
Linux's security is laughable with the elementary permission-bits scheme. It's
not reliable, nor is it supportable in an enterprise fashion, even though
upstarts attempt to provide the level of service enterprises demand.
Saying Linux is enterprise ready is like using Windows 3.0 for a web server.
> Microsoft has lost the server market.
? It's just now taking it by storm. Windows 2000 server sales are taking
over the server market. Win2K DC is now entering the mainframe market.
Where's Linux? Running tiny web servers for churches and non-profit
organizations.
> Whether it can hold onto the desktop is the big question now.
Against Linux? ROFL
-Chad
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:36:55 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, what is khttpd then?
> >
> > an experimental kernel based web server
>
> So it's a kernel based web server, that's exactly what I was talking about.
Funny, I could swear you were talking about tux, the Red Hat
Linux webserver. Tux is a separate subject from khttpd.
> You just said that kttpd kicked IIS's ass in specweb99, so please admit
> you were wrong, or show me the results.
As anyone can verify, "Red Hat 6.2 threaded web server" aka Tux
is the world speed record holder - AFAIK no specweb results have
been submitted for khttpd.
> In a benchmark... real stable. In real world? Just like everything
> else linux: FLOP.
So you think Linux has flopped? That's rich.
I only wish everything I did could "flop" like that -
LOL
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:36:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:42:47 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>So what? you post from Linux, but that's not a big deal. Your lack of
> Could have fooled me. Around here posting from Linux is akin to
> getting a personal audience with the Pope.
No, it isnt. And im posting from freebsd, which is even more 31337.
Again, you have no idea what youre talking about.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:43:03 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific and perhaps even
banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:38:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>> > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>> > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>> > mean dittly squat.
>> >
>>
>> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
> 1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
> Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
> hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
> 2000 was the prime choice.
http://heroines.sourceforge.net/bcast2000.php3
Looks like youre wrong again, chad.
Idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:39:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>> > > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>> > > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>> > > mean dittly squat.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>>
>> 1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>> Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>> hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>> 2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>> server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>> Never failed us once.
>>
>> 2.) My current employer is releasing a product based on EJB. There is
>> very little support, if any from major web application platform vendors.
>> Some provide it, but it's a use-at-your-own-risk type situation. Sun
>> Solaris and Windows 2000 were the platforms of choice.
>>
>> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>>
>> -Chad
> One more thing I forgot to add...
> Bottom Line:
> Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
> the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
> tasks.
Let me know when you can run w2k on a 244 node S/390 cluster.
=====.
k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:39:00 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:04:45 -0500, Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93sik6$3dj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> (But it is much more stable than Windows NT, in my experience)
>> > Then you don't know how to set up Windows NT properly. Linux has
>> > been far less stable in my experience and in the experience of several
>> > of my colleagues (who come from Unix backgrounds and prefer to stick
>> > with their Solaris and HP-UX boxes).
>> Umm, are you sure it isn't the other way around?
>> Maybe it's you who don't know how to set up Linux properly?
>>
>Perhaps it would be worth reflecting on the fact that many of the stability
>problems for NT and LINUX as seen by advocates on both side of the issue are
>the result of inexperience with the OS they despise most!
Then how come some of us have come to Linux with years of
WinDOS or NT experience and little to NO Unix admin experience
yet can quickly and trivially get our Linux boxes to be
remarkably more robust than anything Microsoft.
If NT needs an "ultimate guru" to run properly then what's
the point? If that's the case, then it's pretty much a big
fat waste of time as you could just spend that time wasted
on NT learning VMS instead.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:41:19 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > The intelligent design of Unix makes things like choice
> > of GUI totally orthogonal to the rest of the system.
> >
> > Something like Quartz could be substituted for the X11
> > based system without much trouble.
>
> You're crazy. All existing GUI apps would not work with Quartz because the
> existing apps use sockets to connect to the GUI.
Not very creative there, are you? Someone who knows the
system and thinks like a programmer could come up with
a general approach pretty quickly.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 14 Jan 2001 13:39:24 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:29:02 GMT,
> > Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >
> > >Who said that? Not me.
> > >
> > >It's funny, you guys say, "Open source is superior"
> > >I say, "No it's not, look at X"
> > >You say, "Oh, so closed source is perfect, right!?"
> > >
> > >Um... no, I'm saying Open source isn't superior, nor perfect, nor
> > >anything the OSS advocates claim it to be. It's no better, only
> > >worse than closed source.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Has it been pointed out to you that it took 6 months as open source, to
> > discover a backdoor that had existed in a previously closed source program for
> > years?
>
> No one was looking because no one needed to.
How do you know?
> how was closed source better in this case?
>
> How many times had it beel exploited?
That's the kicker, isn't it?
Who knows how many people were using it? Who knows how many backdoors
are in commercial software?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:41:03 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:23:10 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:05:14 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > No, but the kernel itself has to be. A Linux install kernel has to
>be
>> >able
>> >> > to run on a 386. MS's install kernel is both multiprocessor and 486
>> >> > optimized (for NT4, P5 optimized for 2000).
>> >>
>> >> Not true. Redhat comes with multiple kernel rpms (386, 586, 686) and
>> >> installs the one optimized for your machine. Mandrake ships with a
>> >kernel
>> >> optimized for 586. Both have separate rpms for smp which are
>> >automatically
>> >> installed if you have an smp.
>> >
>> >Read again. The *INSTALL* kernel. We're talking in the context of a
>Linux
>> >installation which never reboots from the original kernel loaded off the
>CD
>> >or install floppy. Red Hat can't install an optimized kernel if it's not
>> >running yet, now can it?
>>
>> Sure it can. All it needs to do is to deposit a binary somewhere
>> on the disk and tell the bootloader where to find it.
>
>How can it deposit a binary on a disk that isn't formatted? additionally,
>in order to have the bootloader load it, it would have to reboot.
Even a Windows kernel image can deposit a linux kernel on
disk and manipulate the boot block.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:42:50 -0000
On 13 Jan 2001 12:04:07 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > No, but the kernel itself has to be. A Linux install kernel has to be
>> able
>> > > to run on a 386. MS's install kernel is both multiprocessor and 486
>> > > optimized (for NT4, P5 optimized for 2000).
>> >
>> > Not true. Redhat comes with multiple kernel rpms (386, 586, 686) and
>> > installs the one optimized for your machine. Mandrake ships with a
>> kernel
>> > optimized for 586. Both have separate rpms for smp which are
>> automatically
>> > installed if you have an smp.
>>
>> Read again. The *INSTALL* kernel. We're talking in the context of a Linux
>> installation which never reboots from the original kernel loaded off the CD
>> or install floppy. Red Hat can't install an optimized kernel if it's not
>> running yet, now can it?
Why is a Microsoft cheerleader requiring the restriction that
a kernel never be rebooted? A microsoft installer couldn't ever
get ANYwhere without at least 10 reboots.
>
>You could always use the 2-kernel monty to swap kernels while running.
...or just ignore the constraint as piontless and arbitrary.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:47:26 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> > if your linux has no gui then how are you running that kde desktop shown
> > in your sig?
>
> Easy. I have two machines. It's the older system I upgraded with the
> 30GByte disk, ATA100 controller and CDRW.
>
> It burnt it's first CD last night. Gosh! That worked just fine.
>
> If only telnet, nfs worked.
(?)
I've never encountered a Linux system where telnet
and nfs "didn't work". Could you explain how you have
attempted to activate those services, and what was the
result?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:47:11 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:30:08 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Dumbshit. Statically linked libraries were abandoned years ago.
>
>What the hell are you smoking? I see tons of Linux software with staticly
>linked library files.
Then name a few.
Also, static linking must be the ONLY option. A package that
has both available doesn't count.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: 14 Jan 2001 13:47:46 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > >DOS boot disk with network stack. Download files, run setup.
> > > > >Alternatively, install LAN-Manager redirector and run setup off the
> > > server.
> > > >
> > > > how does it deal with licencing?
> > >
> > > Licensing is a paper issue, not a software one. If you have a
> legitimate
> > > license, you can install it from any source, including over the
> internet.
> >
> > Cool! Where do I get DOS or Lan-Manager, and where do I get drivers
> > for my 3c59x?
>
> NT server ships with DOS copies of LAN Manager, and the DOS drivers for th
> 3c59x are on the drivers disk (along with OS/2, Netware, etc..)
Ours doesn't (not that I can tell, anyway). I have 3 NT Server
licenses (with many CALs attached) -- they all cam in white boxes with
one CD and 3 floppy disks.
The 3Com did come with DOS drivers (kudos!), I assumed they'd stopped
making them. (although I doubt the USB->ethernet adapters on our new
laptops would work; for that matter I doubt most PCMCIA cards would
work).
Why don't you just admit that it is next to impossible to install
Windows over the network, and that it is impossible over the internet
(via FTP or HTTP)?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
