Linux-Advocacy Digest #632, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux ("Adam
Warner")
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mig)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
"Windows is no Linux Killer" ("Adam Warner")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Mart van deWege)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (SoneoneElse)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Mart van deWege)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:33:39 GMT
Hi Jerry,
> I want to gather information on the compatibility of Motherboards on
> Linux.
Virtually all motherboards that work with Windows work with Linux. It would
be much easier to concentrate on obtaining information about those
motherboards that currently have problems.
As at September 1999 virtually no motherboard was unsupported:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Hardware-HOWTO-2.html#ss2.1
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:32:54 +0100
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> > Understanding "quality" as it applies to operating systems is just as
> > important for purchasing decisions on computers as understanding
> > anti-lock brakes, fuel injection, and vehicle warrantees are for cars.
> >
> > An educated customer would choose anything but Windows.
>
> In case this is related to the thread "it's not all about up-time" - let
> me start by saying that I'm pretty much in love with Linux (as a concept
> at least).
>
>
> I didn't say that up-time isn't important. I just said that I felt it was
> a
> mistake to focus on up-time as the raison d'etre of Linux. It's quite
> obvious that there are other things that a lot of people feel are more
> important than up-time numbers.
>
> Like application availability. I've spent the last couple of days looking
> for a WYSIWYG web page editor so I don't have to boot into Win2K to use
> FrontPage or
> Dreamweaver. Yes, yes, I know - those kinds of tools give you dirty HTML,
> and
> real men code their web pages using vi / emacs / etc. Still, I just want
> an interface where, say, I can select a range in an HTML table and move it
> elsewhere in the table, and see immediately what the result is.
You have that in Linux with Mozilla and Netscape.. works great together
with Quanta or Bluefish. In Windows i use HomeSite and FrontPage Express
for quick layout. There is though someting in the caliber of Dremweaver
missing.
> Is it more productive to have a desktop OS that I have reboot a couple
> times a week, but that has applications like Dreamweaver, or is it more
> productive to use an OS that *never* goes down, but that I have to use a
> text editor to design a web page?
Tricky question.. i have done HTML coding the last 4 years and allways
ended with Homesite or Quanta as editors simmply because the code from
tools like FrontPAge (& Express) was so terrible that you had spend more
time cleaning it up than using the flashy tools .. The latest incarnation
of DreamWeaver does a very good job mantaining clean code im told but i
still use Homesite when working in Windows
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:41:04 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> For a while, my LoseDOS box would only perform one scan per boot-up
My system only allows one shutdown per boot up.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:54:01 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> I refuse to debate on an argument that has no merit.
And "merit" means you think you can win, right?
But you sure keep parroting the same claims over and over, even after we
have refuted them repeatedly.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:50:01 -0600
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Could you repost them, or direct us to the link in deja?
>
> http:// ...
Thanks,
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:56:26 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> Shall I continue?
Yes, but cut to the chase and tell us how many of the Fortune 500 are also in the
Hot 100.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Windows is no Linux Killer"
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:59:33 GMT
Does ZDNet run an opposite story every few days just for the hype and
traffic?
Anyway enjoy linvocates:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2676210,00.html
The article is one big metaphor, where Linux is a muscle car and Windows is
a station wagon.
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 06:03:36 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> I don't recall saying that Fortune 500 = top web site. Nor do
> I see that anywhere in my previous post. Please show us where
> you see this.
No, you *didn't* say it. And *we* are saying that you should be looking at the
top sites rather than the Fortune 500.
> It's my contention that Fortune 500 sites receive MORE hits
> and visits than does your average non-profit or personal site.
> Wouldn't you agree?
Not necessarily. I'm sure lots of non-profit organizations get zillions of
hits per day. Some F500 probably have cobwebs on them.
> Also, Fortune 500 customers are finicky and typically demand
> the best.
I've worked for a F500 company, and I *know* that's a crock. Most of them buy
whatever results from the power plays between managers trying to climb the
ladder up a pyramid that keeps getting narrower and narrower.
> Many of them conduct business or customer service
> on-line, so a stable web platform is critical. The fact that
> many choose IIS over Apache is the point I'm trying to make.
> A huge majority of them believe that iPlanet and IIS (both
> closed source) are much more reliable and bet their on-line
> business on it.
Actually, the F500 have had Web sites longer than most businesses, so to a very
big extent their choices are just a fossilized picture of what was running the
Web five years ago. Big companies tend to stick with a solution, and of course
money isn't the least concern for them.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:07:21 +0000
From: Mart van deWege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> mlw wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> "Due to loose interpretations and vendor uniqueness in the ATA Standard,
>
>>> there is no defined way that a driver can be assured that the disk's
>
>>> cache has been flushed. "
>
>>
>
> Then there is no way to safely switch off a drive. That doesn't make sense.
>
>
>
>
>> But you missed this:
>
>>
>
>> "One way of handling this is to issue a Standby or Sleep
>
>> command to the drive when you want to flush the cache.
>
>> This works because the drive must flush the cache before
>
>> spinning down. These commands may complete before the
>
>> drive completely spins down, but they do not complete
>
>> before the cache is flushed."
>
>
>
> Now that makes sense. Does Linux does this?
>
>
I am just an ordinary user, but I can attest that this is what
Linux appears to do on my machine. I have a rather noisy Quantum,
and I can hear it spinning down *before* Linux shuts down the
machine. I may have a look through the source sometime this week,
this sounds like an intriguing question. It will also help me get
my C knowledge back to normal levels.
<snip some stuff>
------------------------------
From: SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:57:13 GMT
Reply-To: Truthteller
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:02:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>The simplest workaround is to avoid using gcc, and using kgcc instead.
>>Reason is that kgcc is the previous version of gcc, which will work
>>correctly, unlike the gcc that you'll have with RH.
>
>Maybe I've been fooling myself all these years, by continuing to think
>of Usenet as an intellectual exercise. Why does nobody seem to be
>getting this?
>
Because everyone else is getting it, and you are the person not
getting it.
The newests open source apps ( whether for Windows or Linux or
other OSs ) almost always come out in source code form first.
After a lag time, sometimes long, sometimes short, the prebuilt
binaries come out. If it's a highly niche item, they sometimes never
come out.
As a result you will at times have to compile stuff. It doesn't matter
that you don't know C from FORTRAN. You should still be able to
compile.
Otherwise you leave yourself out of all the newest innovations out
there.
>What am I getting myself in to?
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:41:43 +0000
From: Mart van deWege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>>> Netscape 1.01N was my third browser.
>
>>>
>
>>> ..can't wait for Opera to get out of Beta.
>
>>
>> Hmm... can't make up my mind about Opera...
>
>>
>
>> I've tried Netscape 6 on Windows - nice skins! Shame about the (i) speed
>
>> (ii) occaisonal crash etc.
>
>
>
>
> FYI Netscape 6 on Linux is the same. Nics but dog slow. On a P133 its
>
> simply unworkable. I hope they improve it in the near future, since I
>
> can't see how a browser can really be that slow.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ed
>
Because Netscape, under pressure from marketing took an
unfinished branch from the Mozilla tree and shipped it. Try
Mozilla 0.7, I am now using it to post this (from Win98, having
network config problems in linux, sigh), it is from the Mozilla
branch *after* the NS6 release. It is fairly stable, crashes
about as much as IE 5.5 on my sytem, and it renders (especially
dynamic pages) *fast*. The context menus are still a little
unresponsive though.
Mart
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:02:23 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > > I know how it works, and I'm a Microsoft developer.
> >
> > I suspect this is an anomaly.
>
> 8)
>
> Am I the only one?
>
> > > Ah, but then I started as a Electronics Engineer at EMI, then switched
> > > to software. That's one reason in my favour when I took my current job
> > > writing audio device drivers.
> >
> > Similar to my background. I started as a tech, moved into hardware
> > design, then into software. I have had to actually write drivers for my
> > hardware design of the prototypes I built. Talk about a painful
> > engineering lessons. How many engineers can use a signal generator,
> > oscilloscope, and a kernel debugger at the same time to test a driver
> > and board at the same time? I suspect, perhaps, many, but not too many.
> >
> > My VCR still blinks 12:00. :-(
>
> I created a 6809 machine from scratch. Originally it had a bank of switches
> to enter memory. Writing code was *so slow* at the start. Then I hand coded
> the BIOS (no assembler yet!), created the VDU card (oh boy that was a pain!
> Oscilloscope on standby!), added 64k of dynamic memory with my own custom
> built RAS/CAS decoder and address multiplexor, added a floppy disk
> controller (turn the pot to the left until it breaks, then to the right...
> put it in the center, hey it works!).
I think we could go on for a very long time swapping war stories. The
kiddies would get bored. Suffice to say, I've don't my share of wire
wrapping home built computers, no 6809s, but 1802, 8080,Z80, the last
computer I built from scratch was an 8088.
>
> Oh, I seem to understand how to program VCR's. I like reading stereo
> instructions!
Oh, I understand, I just don't have the patience to deal with the idiocy
every time the electricity hups.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:03:11 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> spicerun wrote:
>
> > I suspect, in his case, he wasn't an Electronics Engineer long enough to
> > really understand devices (and got very frustrated)
> > ....in fact, that's probably the reason he switched to Software, so that
> > he wouldn't have to understand Hardware.
>
> Naaah.
>
> I did design and build my own 6809 machine, write my own bios, create a 64k
> dynamic RAM board and it worked first time, put together a floppy disk
> controller (hardware and software)...
>
> You seem to be equating Windows fan with inferior mind.
It is not as if it is statistically unfounded.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:01:49 -0600
In another thread Ayende Rahien reminded me where to find the Hot 100
(thanks!), so I've pulled the list and done a current analysis.
Hot 100, as of 17-Jan-2001
Courtesy of http://www.100hot.com/directory/100hot/index.html
Uptimes as of 21-Jan-2001
Courtesy of www.netcraft.com
Use "latest" 90-day moving average.
If average is over < 90 days, did not log that fact here.
Add "www." if the site gives a list.
yahoo.com .FreeBSD, no info
microsoft.com .W2K, 15.63
lycos.com .Tru64, no info
aol.com .Solaris, 234.56
altavista.com .Tru64, no info
egroups.com .FreeBSD, no info
excite.com .Solaris, no info
go.com .Solaris, 31.50
google.com .Linux, 44.53
cnet.com .Solaris, 40.25
cnn.com .Solaris, 32.21
fortunecity.com .Solaris, 9.39
looksmart.com .Solaris, 31.96
chek.com .Linux, no info
ugo.com .NT4/98, no info
amazon.com .Linux, 42.33
snowball.com .Solaris, 52.80
usa.net .W2K, 7.96
quote.com .unknown (but IIs5), no info
ebay.com .Solaris, 42.51
nai.com .NT4/98, no info
acm.org .AIX, no info
macromedia.com .Solaris, no info
rational.com .Solaris, 79.28
zdnet.com .Solaris, 81.01
spedia.net .Linux, 63.63
homestead.com .NT4/98, no info
sportsline.com .Solaris, 16.69
burstnet.com .Linux, 89.39
adbutler.com .Linux, 5.84
uspto.gov .<not in database>
reuters.com .Solaris, 7.71
weather.com .Solaris, 85.45
lettera.net .NT4/98, no info
about.com .FreeBSD, no info
pathfinder.com .Solaris, 334.76
mail.com .Solaris, no info
mtnsms.com .W2K, 9.88
nodak.edu .<not in database>
click2net.com .FreeBSD, no info
real.com .Linux, no info
theglobe.com .NT4/98, no info
wwf.com .Linux, no info
nbci.com .Solaris, 23.03
nettaxi.com .Solaris, no info
myalert.com .<not in database>
msnbc.com .W2K, 20.54
sun.com .Solaris, 55.54
sony.com .Solaris, 42.49
mtv.com .Solaris, 79.84
aveo-attune.com .<not in database>
monster.com .IIS on unknown, no info
mamma.com .Linux, 18.43
eudoramail.com .Solaris, 7.42
filepool.com .<not in database>
everyone.net .Linux, 26.74
passport.com .W2K, 36.57
cjb.net .FreeBSD, no info
mp3.com .Linux, 48.36
webjump.com .NT4/98, no info
jackpot.com .W2K, 3.84
oracle.com .Solaris, 17.32
freedrive.com .NT4/98, no info
efront.com .FreeBSD, no info
metropoli2000.net .Linux[*], no info
mryy.com .unknown, no info
delphi.com .unknown, no info
gsmbox.com .Linux, no info
netflip.com .Solaris, no info
web1000.com .NT4/98, no info
tucows.com .Linux, 35.81
targetnet.com .FreeBSD, no info
windowsmedia.com .W2K, 45.05
speedyclick.com .Linux, 21.73
nytimes.com .Solaris, 54.76
nasa.gov .<not in database>
internet.com .Solaris, 43.59
epilot.com .W2K, 12.04
webshots.com .Linux, 56.49
bizland.com .Linux, 6.59
talkcity.com .Solaris, 39.94
tenmax.com .NT4/98, no info
apple.com .Solaris, 75.14
brinkster.com .unknown (but IIs5), no info
dell.com .W2K, 11.82
terra.com .Solaris, 26.36
friendfinder.com .Linux, 4.94
hp.com .HP-UX, no info
developer.com .Solaris, 82.65
tminterzines.com .BSD/OS, 38.28
ea.com .Solaris, 28.36
clickagents.com .Solaris, 6.26
winamp.com .Solaris, 48.26
50megs.com .Linux, 49.35
homepage.com .W2K, 42.97
usatoday.com .Solaris, 94.38
unicast.com .<not in database>
infospace.com .W2K, 11.77
zzn.com .unknown (but IIs3), no info
foxnews.com .Tru64, no info
[*] "Microsoft-IIS/6.0PR2 (Unix) PHP/4.0.4 on Linux"
There may be even more errors in the following counts and averages than
there are in the transcriptions above. I did not check my arithmetic,
because everyone but Chad already knows how it's going to turn out.
He's welcome to check it if he thinks he can wrangle any advantage out
of it. (He'll need it.)
Solaris - 35 sites (30 with stats), avg 60.18, max 334.76, min 6.26
Linux - 19 sites (14 with stats), avg 36.73, max 89.39, min 4.94
W2K - 11 sites, avg 19.82, max 45.05, min 3.84
Using Linux as the benchmark (simply because it's the median), you get:
Solaris - 1.65
Linux - 1.00
W2K - 0.54 (State-of-the-art Unix killer, tee hee.)
Others:
NT4 or W98 - 9 sites, no info.
BSD - 8 sites (of which 7 are FreeBSD), mostly no stats.
Tru64 - 3 sites, no stats.
HP-UX - 1 site, no stats.
AIX - 1 site, no stats
6 unknown, 7 not in database.
Total 100
Corrections welcome.
Ready to spin, Chad. Notice that Linux and MS have approximately the
same share of these "fluffy the cat" sites, though almost half the
MS-based sites haven't seen fit to upgrade to W2K.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:09:15 -0500
Jerry Wong wrote:
>
> I want to gather information on the compatibility of Motherboards on
> Linux.
This is probably a very good thing to try to do, good luck.
I have a Tyan Tiger 133c, dual processor board that works, but not well,
I don't recommend it.
I have a Asus dual processor board that works, and works great.
In my setup, both these boards have the same amount of memory, same CPU
speed, same Linux kernel, same hard disks, but the Tyan board takes
2x-4x longer to do thing the exact same thing.
Next time I reboot, I'll tell you the exact make models, but that may be
months from now.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
