Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
Virtual Hosing [Was Re: A salutary lesson about open source] ("Adam Warner")
Re: Virtual Hosting [Was Re: A salutary lesson about open source] ("Adam Warner")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Mig)
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Edward Rosten)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Edward Rosten)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (mlw)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (mlw)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Edward Rosten)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Damien)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:53:08 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
>
> JS PL wrote:
>
> > Easily. I just built a system last week. And it played an mp3 perfectly
> > while simultaneously copying 600mb worth of other mp3's from the cd drive to
> > a folder AND installing office 2000 from the other cd drive. Didn't skip a
> > beat. It was probably "accessing" the internet too, I forget.
>
> Sure, and I'll bet it cured your cancer too...
>
> Meanwhile, back in the real world, my friend just mentioned
> that he clicked on the icq button the other day and windows
> 2000 spontaneously rebooted.
Tsk. That's obviously the fault of the mouse drivers. Its not Win2Ks
fault that it can't supply decent drivers. Besides if it was Linux you
would have spent 8 months just getting your keyboard to work, never mind
the mouse.
> Now, that's the windows we all know and love!
A friend of mine found another good one. It involved paintbrush (I can't
remember the exact bug), using the text tool. Caused a BSOD every time,
perfectly repeatable on that computer. It was pretty generic hardware as
well. Fun.
> > > Windows 2000 could never replace Linux on a desktop.
> >
> > The funny part is that you pretend to have ever ran Windows 2000. You better
> > stick with your Win98 box Max. It's right up your alley. But I don't need to
> > tell you that, you would have it no other way (running win9x).
>
> I have a windows 2000 pc sitting here - but since I have a Linux
> system in the same room, naturally I don't use 2000 much. Basically
> the only time I touch windows is when I have to deal with some pesky
> legacy file format, e.g a word doc from the office. It would probably make
> more sense to run the legacy pc apps inside win4lin or vmware, but
> I haven't gotten around to that yet -
Wine makes a passable attempt at Office 97 (its not too slow, emen n my
computer). Last time I tried (which was some months ago) printing wasn't
too hot, but it could view, edit and save.
> For my own use, abi word is fine, but I'm looking forward to the
> maturating of open office (nee star office) and koffice.
Have you tried LaTeX? Itscertainly worth a go.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Virtual Hosing [Was Re: A salutary lesson about open source]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:53:12 +1200
Hi Ayende,
> > Please provide further information about IIS hosting
> > thousands of sites on a single machine. While it might
> > be a "waste" of IIS power, however, I'm sure it would
> > be in a hosting facility's best interests to do this,
> > since people would gladly pay a decent monthly fee
> > to do this. By stating that IIS can host "many" (we'll
> > set a nice low minimum of 300 virtual hosts), please
> > provide some information on where this is being done.
> >
> > I look forward to hearing some further statistics on
> > this from you, as I'm genuiunely curious on this.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/iis/shsover.asp
I see you have responded with a link to Microsoft's Scalable Hosting
Solution. Is it a typo that the Readme here (just follow the link from the
page you provided):
http://a1652.ms.a.microsoft.com/f/1652/1611/2h/download.microsoft.com/downlo
ad/iis50/Utility/Beta1/NT5/EN-US/readme.txt
States that this product is at "Beta 1" revision?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Virtual Hosting [Was Re: A salutary lesson about open source]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:54:57 +1200
Hi all,
Repost with a spelling corrected subject :-)
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/iis/shsover.asp
>
> Is it a typo that the Readme here (just follow the link from the
> page you provided):
>
>
http://a1652.ms.a.microsoft.com/f/1652/1611/2h/download.microsoft.com/downlo
> ad/iis50/Utility/Beta1/NT5/EN-US/readme.txt
>
> States that this product is at "Beta 1" revision?
>
> Regards,
> Adam
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:54:02 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>
> Call it whatever you want.
>
> It's obvious that the Netcraft numbers are grossly misleading.
What use is it to look at the Fortune 500? How many people visit Ford's or Dow
Chemical's Websites every day?
If you want to focus on "typical" sites, Netcraft's the thing. If you want
"important" sites, get the Hot 100 list and use Netcraft to find out what
they're running (and what their average uptimes are).
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:37:02 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:949plq$ke0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yea, that's something to remember. He can upgrade his graphics card
> > drivers without rebooting or stopping whatever else he's doing.
>
> Unless of course "what he's doing" is GUI related, such as working on a
> word processing document, spreadsheet, or database.
>
> For most end-users, all they work with is GUI apps, so what's the
> difference?
>
>
>
Well, I can be called a end-user too. But i have a linux-computer right
next to me running all the stuff which is network-related (DSL,
news-server, www-server for internal net, DNS etc). In a home-setup with at
least 4 computers running all the time and the computers of the kids
justsometimes this makes sense. Well, that computer even has NO X-setup.
It does not need any. All things are done via SSH (no telnet running) from
my main system (also linux, both SuSE 7 Pro). I DO have programs installed
which need X running (for example the CD-ROM burner proggies), but they do
their output on my main system (something which is VERY EASY with X, and
next to impossible with Wintendo). And for the occasional need to run
Wintendo, VmWare does the job just fine. And because it's an X-Prog itself,
I can even decide to redirect the output to a completely different computer
(for example, to the laptop in summer in the garden. Why should I put up
with the measly power of a 330MHz laptop, when I can have the power of a
2-processor 500-Mhz machine running linux on the laptop screen. By the way,
linux (SuSE 7) detected the laptop-hardware (including PCMCIA-network-card)
all by itself, after the first reboot after install all the stuff was
already working. Was a major headache before under Wintendo98. So much for
easier install (which I don't give a damn about, if it's done just once)
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:40:22 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:949quf$ljt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <kvl96.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average
> > desktop *IS*
> > > shutdown at night.
> >
> > This is an artifact of the historical unreliability of MS operating
> > systems. Unix/Linux workstations are never shutdown at night.
>
> Tell that to your average "save the world" do gooder that insists on
> turning
> everything off to save the ecology. So called "green PC's" were invented
> to help shut these people up.
>
> > > > Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by
> > Microsoft,
> > > > that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
> > >
> > > The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that
> > they used
> > > beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released
> > version,
> > > but beta's were also used).
> >
> > NO
> > And I repeat NO NO NO
> > They were not counting "unplannned reboot" they were counting "abnormal
> > shutdown". Read the study (which is woefully short on details). So if
> > the whole system has gone to hell (barely responsive, short on
> > resources, etc.) and you reboot "voluntarily" before it completely
> > freezes/bsods on you, this counts as a "normal shutdown" and doesn't
> > count against the reliability numbers.
>
> And you're still ignoring the fact that they used *BETA* versions of the
> OS. Several beta versions, some of which were known to be unstable.
>
>
>
>
Sure, and the sys-admins were not up to the task, right, Erik?
Miss that, because thats one of your main excuses why Wintendo crashes
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:59:42 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
> >
> > Call it whatever you want.
> >
> > It's obvious that the Netcraft numbers are grossly misleading.
>
> What use is it to look at the Fortune 500? How many people visit Ford's
or Dow
> Chemical's Websites every day?
>
> If you want to focus on "typical" sites, Netcraft's the thing. If you
want
> "important" sites, get the Hot 100 list and use Netcraft to find out what
> they're running (and what their average uptimes are).
I did just that some time ago.
The result was Apache first, IIS second, and various others third.
Unix first, NT/2K second, linux third.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:03:55 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> The thing with OSS is, it's not about
> OSS, it's simply because Linux is free. People use it, but hardly anyone
> bets the company one it, and the ones who have are mostly out of business
> now.
Facts, please?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:02:00 +0100
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
> >
> > Call it whatever you want.
> >
> > It's obvious that the Netcraft numbers are grossly misleading.
>
> What use is it to look at the Fortune 500? How many people visit Ford's
> or Dow Chemical's Websites every day?
>
> If you want to focus on "typical" sites, Netcraft's the thing. If you
> want "important" sites, get the Hot 100 list and use Netcraft to find out
> what they're running (and what their average uptimes are).
More intersting would be to look at volume served on ordinary websites (no
downloads) with both static and dynamic content. There must be a survey
somewhere.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:55:12 GMT
In article <WX2a6.931$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94acvk$a9d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Larry R wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Gotta love this:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
> > >>
> > >> I've seen this on AMD 450 MHz machines running 98. This is what
> happens
> > >> when you take shortcuts. For example, find a faster way to shut
down
> > >> all programs when doing a shutdown instead of screwing with
> > >> real/protected mode.
> >
> > > Did you even read the article?
> >
> > > The problem was not "screwing with real/protected mode". The
problem
> was
> > > the computer didn't give the drives (with large caches) enough
time to
> > > completely write out their data before shutting down.
WAIT A MINUTE...let's be clear on this...
The OPERATING SYSTEM didn't give the drives time to completely flush
their buffers before shutting down. And that is a critical function of
the operating system.
> >
> > OHHHH....Its the COMPUTERS FAULT FOR BEING TOO FAST.
>
> No, actually.. the drive was too slow, and didn't provide enough
capacitance
> to deal with it.
>
> > Thanks for clearing that up.
> >
> > I'm sure everyone will be willing to slow down their hardware so
that
> windows
> > wont break anymore.
>
> Let me ask you a question. How long is WIndows supposed to wait?
Suppose
> IBM introduces a new drive with a 10GB buffer in it. It takes 10
minutes to
> flush the buffer to disk. How long is Windows supposed to wait before
> shutting down? The drive provides no way for the OS to know when the
buffer
> is fully flushed, so what is the OS supposed to do?
Windows is supposed to wait long enough for the buffer to be safely
written to the disk. And yes, the drive can tell you if that has
happened.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:14:33 +0000
> Then take a look at the titles for various posts, and tell me if I'm lying:
>
> "Linux *has* the EDGE" (not Linux has the edge for me)
>
> "Linux, it is great"
It's a bloody linux advocacy group. I can't believe you are in a linux
advocacy group complaining that people are advocation linux. Are you on
crack?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:08:54 -0600
Tom Wilson wrote:
> Also, even with logging back in, it can take a few minutes
> for the OS to unlock the misbehaving DLL so I can rebuild and reinstall
> after a quick edit. I've noticed, though, that 2K seems to take 1/2 the time
> NT4 did in that respect.
You know the mantra of software optimization: "Make the frequent occurence
fastest."
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:11:40 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> That's an interesting point. Many times, the Windows drivers will enable
> accelerated or other functionality that the basic Linux drivers don't,
> causing them to use more power than they would otherwise and stressing the
> power supply more.
Another post just dripping with facts.
But the good news is, next time W2K crashes you don't have to tell your boss it
was the hardware, or the drivers, or the administrators. Now you can add "the
power supply" to your short list of random excuses.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:08:39 GMT
In article <gK2a6.927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:949quf$ljt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <kvl96.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average
> > desktop *IS*
> > > shutdown at night.
> >
> > This is an artifact of the historical unreliability of MS operating
> > systems. Unix/Linux workstations are never shutdown at night.
>
> Tell that to your average "save the world" do gooder that insists on
turning
> everything off to save the ecology. So called "green PC's" were
invented to
> help shut these people up.
And if your workstation is doing nothing, go ahead. Many
scientist/engineers have big jobs running overnight on any available
CPU. Depends on your environment I guess. Stability for multi-day
computational runs was why I switched to Linux. That and a better
development environment.
>
> > > > Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by
> > Microsoft,
> > > > that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
> > >
> > > The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that
> > they used
> > > beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released
> > version,
> > > but beta's were also used).
> >
> > NO
> > And I repeat NO NO NO
> > They were not counting "unplannned reboot" they were
counting "abnormal
> > shutdown". Read the study (which is woefully short on details).
So if
> > the whole system has gone to hell (barely responsive, short on
> > resources, etc.) and you reboot "voluntarily" before it completely
> > freezes/bsods on you, this counts as a "normal shutdown" and doesn't
> > count against the reliability numbers.
>
> And you're still ignoring the fact that they used *BETA* versions of
the OS.
> Several beta versions, some of which were known to be unstable.
I don't care what version of the OS was used. The methodology of the
study is fundamentally flawed in two ways:
1. Power outages count as abnormal shutdowns to MS detriment
2. "Voluntary" shutdowns to avert iminent crashes are counted as
normal shutdowns to MS benefit.
In my experience, item 2 amounts to a significant fraction of the total
reboots even if you are shutting down every night. The impact of item
1 is probably much smaller. In either case, it's a big enough problem
to seriously question the usefullness of this study. I consider it at
best incompetent, and at worst, dishonest that they did not publish the
total number of reboots for each OS over the study period.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:12:28 GMT
In article <SC2a6.925$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:949plq$ke0
$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Yea, that's something to remember. He can upgrade his graphics card
> > drivers without rebooting or stopping whatever else he's doing.
>
> Unless of course "what he's doing" is GUI related, such as working on
a word
> processing document, spreadsheet, or database.
>
> For most end-users, all they work with is GUI apps, so what's the
> difference?
>
The difference is that, when I want to mess around with upgrading my
drivers, I don't want to wait 2 days (or 2 weeks maybe) for the current
study I'm running to finish. So I just background it, and go about my
business. I guess I'm not a "typical end user" but it's important to
me.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:21:57 +0000
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [..]
> >> In Netscape's case, if you try to
> >> save an image, and move directory, it looses the filename.
>
> Not in Netscape 6/Mozilla.
Not everyone has the luxury of using netscape6. It's just too damn slow
on a P133. I have to say, though that the above feature/bug has never
really bothered me much.
-Ed
>
> ian.
>
> \ /
> (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
> /(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:32:56 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> > get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> > to believe all these claims that have been made over the last few
> > years about NT staying up indefinately? How are we expected to
> > believe the current claims made about W2K?
>
> Microsoft did not conduct the study. Why do you people always distort the
> truth?
Do you think for one minute that Microsoft did not "OK" the report
before publication? Do you think for one Minute that if Microsoft did
not like the results they would be public? Do you not think if Microsoft
did not like the results, they wouldn't destroy the results of the test,
and do another, until they get the results they do like?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:32:58 -0500
Bones wrote:
>
> > Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> > get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> > to believe all these claims...
>
> Well, to be fair, Microsoft had nothing to do with the report other than
> asking it be done. And it isn't apparent from NSTL's report that any type of
> configuration was dictated to the academic and private institutions who
> participated in the test.
>
Do you think for one minute that Microsoft did not "OK" the report
before publication? Do you think for one Minute that if Microsoft did
not like the results they would be public? Do you not think if Microsoft
did not like the results, they wouldn't destroy the results of the test,
and do another, until they get the results they do like?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:36:04 +0000
"." wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Larry R wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Gotta love this:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
> >>
> >> I've seen this on AMD 450 MHz machines running 98. This is what happens
> >> when you take shortcuts. For example, find a faster way to shut down
> >> all programs when doing a shutdown instead of screwing with
> >> real/protected mode.
>
> > Did you even read the article?
>
> > The problem was not "screwing with real/protected mode". The problem was
> > the computer didn't give the drives (with large caches) enough time to
> > completely write out their data before shutting down.
>
> OHHHH....Its the COMPUTERS FAULT FOR BEING TOO FAST.
Basically, you're buggered. If you get anything less than the fastest
computer, the latest windows version runs like NT4 on a 386 SX/16. If
you do, then it breaks and won't shut down. Better not run windows then.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> I'm sure everyone will be willing to slow down their hardware so that windows
> wont break anymore.
Funny, normally running windows slows down the hardware.
> No, really.
>
> -----.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19 Jan 2001 23:41:17 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[*nice specs*]
> It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
> plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
You might run into some problems getting this machine to dual boot.
The default Redhat Workstation install (which the OEM probably used)
will likely have only two partitions (root and swap) which doesn't
leave you anywhere to put Windows. Partition magic will get you over
that hurdle, for a price.
Also, Windows does really understand that there might be other OSen in
the world, much less on the same machine, so it will definately
overwrite the master boot record when it's installed. It'll take some
magic, and a boot disk to get things back in order.
I'm guessing that your OEM choose hardware that works well with Redhat
7, meaning that it'll all be auto-detected and setup properly without
any intervention other then banging on the return key. This isn't
that difficult and will save them a lot of skilled labor. This also
means that you won't lose much effort if you wipe the drive, install
windows and then Redhat again. I think that'll actually be easier
than installing Windows on the machine as is. Or is that what you
wanted you experiment to show?
Actually I'd rethink the whole thing. I wish I'd deleted my Windows
partitions a lot sooner then I did. I can't imagine how much time I
wasted rebooting to switch OSen, or rebooting because something was
going wrong with Windows.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:41:29 +1100
mlw wrote:
>
> Bones wrote:
> >
> > > Aaron Ginn wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> > > get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> > > to believe all these claims...
> >
> > Well, to be fair, Microsoft had nothing to do with the report other than
> > asking it be done. And it isn't apparent from NSTL's report that any type of
> > configuration was dictated to the academic and private institutions who
> > participated in the test.
> >
>
> Do you think for one minute that Microsoft did not "OK" the report
> before publication? Do you think for one Minute that if Microsoft did
> not like the results they would be public? Do you not think if Microsoft
> did not like the results, they wouldn't destroy the results of the test,
> and do another, until they get the results they do like?
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
The *really* entertaining bit is that MS are apparently using it to sell W2K
MS may not have *produced* the report, but thay apparently *sanctioned* it.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: 19 Jan 2001 16:45:43 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones) writes:
> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I had installed the wu-ftp fix so long ago that I forgot the
> > problem had ever existed. "Go thou and do likewise."
>
> Hmmm... That's interesting. The Register mentioned RedHat vers 5, 6 and 7. I
> find it a little unsettling that RedHat would not apply a patch to fix a
> problem with washington u ftpd that we all knew about (for a while), and that
> they are still shipping it as the defacto ftp server with their
> distribution.
>
> BTW, I didn't know that the problems with wu ftp were all fixed. The last I
> heard, the advice was to stay clear of it. Also, it seems that the worm
> could easily be modified (would it even need to be?) to affect many
> different Linux distros, like my Slackware, which shipped with wu ftp only a
> year and a half ago.
RedHat has patches for 4.2, 5.2, 6.2 and 7.0 available (and has had
them available since last summer -- if you get hit by 'ramen' then you
deserve it).
--
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
******************************
