Linux-Advocacy Digest #729, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Martin Eden")
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! (Mig)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Getting first W2K server (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("ono")
Re: Microsoft is fired. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Martin Eden")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("ono")
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Getting first W2K server ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("ono")
Re: Comparison by windows buffoon (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:56:22 GMT
Heh. Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Windows 2000.
I got the chance to see the much lauded "Whistler Professional" in action
last night. What a worthless piece of shit. I thought WinME was crap, but
this sets a whole new standard in worthlessness. It was slow as molasses on
a 700mhz Pentium III. There were a lot of very stupid and useless add ons in
it too, including some bizarre theme manager that will make your desktop
look marginally like Aqua (MacOS X).
I have had Windows 2000 running on 4 different machines non-stop since last
spring. I have never had one lockup, one blue screen, one slowdown, nor any
major problem in all that time. It's probably the best all-purpose OS I have
ever run. I know a great many other people who feel the exact same way. It
doesn't inspire much desire to wipe out what works in a gamble for something
"better".
Maybe I am being a little harsh. Early Win2000 betas were slow too, but from
what I saw there is no reason on Earth why any intelligent person would
"upgrade" from Win2K to Whistler. I'd bet it might go over with those
running WinME, but I doubt many people who run Win2K will waste their time
and money on it.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:30:59 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >The Windows user will be productive in a matter of minutes, the Linux
> >one? Well, try back in a few days.
> >
> >-Chad
>
>
> If he's not at the console, check the "reading room". Good chance he
> is in there with a pile of How-To's and forgot to come out.
>
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:52:33 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Sorry, Whistler has always had a theming system. The new shell is
> something different, but includes the existing Whistler Theming support.
>
> You can see screenshots here:
>
> http://whistler.aptik.com/cgi-bin/gallery/gallery.cgi?Category=3
>
> Pay close attention to this one, which shows theming in action:
>
http://whistler.aptik.com/cgi-bin/gallery/show.cgi?Pic=Screen004.gif&cat=3&p
> age=1
It look pretty much like something i have seen on Gnome before (probably
some sawmill theme - http://thems.org). Poor Microsoft... finally they have
X windowmanger style decorations.. it just took them at least 6 years. If
they want any respect then they hopefully concentrate on configurability
and not just themability.
The wizard looks like KDE's wizard - kandalf - maybe KDE should do
something about it unless KDE "stole" kandalf from somewhere else
> You really should read what you're commenting about.
>
> From the article:
>
> > One tester said Microsoft is changing the Whistler desktop interface by
> > introducing some type of "extensible shell," or graphical user
> > interface,
> based
> > on Microsoft .Net.
>
> This is the real change, not the fact that it's themeable.
Hopefully this is the configurabily thing i would like to see... X desktops
& Windowsmanagers dont have this (Well Enlighenment and Sawmill has it but
its difficult to utilize) ready for ordinary enduser usage
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:58:52 +1300
> > The state of NT4 prior to Service Pack 3 is (one reason) why.
>
> The state of 2K prior to SP1 is (one reason) why not.
He was talking about his super-stable unpatched NT4, and I am doubting
it. Win2k doesn't even enter into it, as he said the 2k machines were
patched all the time.
> > I certainly agree a service pack should not be applied until a great deal
> > of backing up and testing is done... MS didn't get it right the first
> > time, so you can't rely on them to get it right the second, third,
> > fourth, fifth, sixth or six-a'th time either. But the important point is
> > that they definitely did not get it right on the first go.
>
> I'm not aware of any special problems with 2K's SP1, or are you talking
> about NT's SP?
Definitely NT4. All I remember about the state of Win2k is that it
required a 'critical update' on the day it shipped.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 25 Jan 2001 21:02:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only if you are used to Windows.
> Who hasn't?
MacOS users for example.
>>
>> > HTTP, FTP,
>> > Media Server, Journaling file system, DirectX hardware acceleration of
> every
>> > device, OpenGL running at the right refresh for that autodetected
> monitor
>> > and video card and the list goes on.
>> Nope, my Matrox G400 was not supported, needed to install drivers, Linux
>> supports it natively (framebuffer).
> Framebuffer - do you call that "supported?" I sure don't
I do. See below.
> Besides, your Matrox will come up in svga mode - that's frame buffer mode -
> so guess what, according to your definition of supported, W2K handled the
> G400 too.
Yeah, 640x480 or 800x600 with 256 colors, Whooopie. The builtin
framebuffer drivers support anything that your monitor can handle in
high or truecolor. They even have some acceleration builtin, which can't
say for the SVGA drivers.
> And besides, when you look on that G400 CD, did you find linux or
> windows drivers? Rest my case.
Didn't look at the CD, downloaded them from their website, and there you
will find both Windows and Linux drivers. So what case are you resting?
(http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/latest/home.cfm)
>> Nope had to replace my 3Com595TX with another networkcard (btw
>> manufactured somewhere in '95). Hercules (third head to my machine (the
>> G400 is dualheaded)) doesn't work either, and it is still usefull for
>> debugging and logging stuff.
> Wow, did you have to spend more than $15 for that NIC?
Who cares what it costs, it used to work with pre Windows 2k MS
operating systems, why is there no support for it in 2k??? The
replacement 21040 is even older and that one still has support!
BTW the 21040 cost me about 7$ 3 years ago, so the cost of the product
doesn't say anything about how it works, the 3com 595 was more expensive
(it's an 100Mbps NIC).
> And, gee, does linux
> (the kernel) support your dualhead g400 in the base distrubution? Support
> acceleration and dual-head mode?
> Without downloading a single thing other
> than the base linux product? Didn't think so.
Yep, that's what the framebufferdriver does. But windows doesn't support
it in the base distrobution. So why do you want to compare Windows with
add-on drivers to Linux without downloading extra stuff? Sounds unfair
to me.
But due to the framebuffer one can even run an ancient XFree (3.3.x)
in high resolutions/color. But ofcourse XFree 4.x is more suited for this
videocard and does even an better job when it comes to dualhead then
windows2k, 2k only allows me only to run the exact same
resolution/colors/refreshrate on the two monitors, and since one is
better the the other I can't get the maximum out of it. X on the other
hand allows me to work woth both monitors independly (hey even windows
98 can do that, so there support for it is even getting worse with the
newer version Windows), and even better, in X I can run different
windowmamanger in the 2 monitors. Now that's kinda cool.
>Hercules support? Who gives a
> shit. My dual head is a Geforce2MX - I don't go for 70s crap.
I do, I don't throw anything away if it's still usefull. Just like the
NIC which workes perfect with win9x, NT4 and Linux.
> <snip>
Hey, what happend to my description of my installation problems....
Don't you have any comment on them? It can't be that I have cheap
hardware. The p2b-ds was the top of the line for the bx chipsets. Hey it
even costs more money now then it did then (2.5 years ago it cost me
about 500$, now the average price is about 650 to 700$ at the local
dealers).
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:09:09 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> New CIO tell us we will convert one of present mission-critical systems
> to Microsoft even though vendor doesn't care what we run still it has to
> be only Oracle. We are IBM only shop today, having many AS/400 and
> RS/6000 only. I and programming and admins are wondering what ugly
> surprises is lurking for us in running W2K in this situation. What can
> go wrong and what can add cost that we amy not getting told by vendor?
Strange way of doing things.
Why didn't your CIO get the vendor to do the installation and set up a test
system, then evaluate the result? That's what I've observed most
corporations do - they don't just dive in like yours appears to be doing?
What was the rationale of switching from AS/400 and RS/6000? They work
don't they? (When I worked for Digital, I could never really say that!).
"If it ain't broke, then don't fix it".
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:10:47 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:56:22 GMT, "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Heh. Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Windows 2000.
>
>I got the chance to see the much lauded "Whistler Professional" in action
>last night. What a worthless piece of shit. I thought WinME was crap, but
>this sets a whole new standard in worthlessness. It was slow as molasses on
>a 700mhz Pentium III. There were a lot of very stupid and useless add ons in
>it too, including some bizarre theme manager that will make your desktop
>look marginally like Aqua (MacOS X).
I got to see it in action last night as well and while it looked nice
I can agree, at least for Win2k users. I'm still not clear exactly how
Whistler fits into the Win2k upgrade path though?
As for WinME, I see no reason to switch from Win98SE, which has been
rock solid for me.
>I have had Windows 2000 running on 4 different machines non-stop since last
>spring. I have never had one lockup, one blue screen, one slowdown, nor any
>major problem in all that time. It's probably the best all-purpose OS I have
>ever run. I know a great many other people who feel the exact same way. It
>doesn't inspire much desire to wipe out what works in a gamble for something
>"better".
Same here with my Win2k machines. They just work and I have not had a
single problem at all.
>Maybe I am being a little harsh. Early Win2000 betas were slow too, but from
>what I saw there is no reason on Earth why any intelligent person would
>"upgrade" from Win2K to Whistler. I'd bet it might go over with those
>running WinME, but I doubt many people who run Win2K will waste their time
>and money on it.
I would say we have to wait and see just like with ME.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:09:06 +0100
>
> Things which suddenly lock up or crash for no good reason are "unstable".
>
>
> Conversely, systems and applications which continue to run (as they
should)
> UNTIL the user or administrator shuts it down are called "stable".
>
That's why I run ms stuff only on my pc's (with very few exceptions). Seems
to be the only way nowadays to have a box that never locks up or crashes. I
was very happy that ms bought Visio so I could finally run an excellent
drawing program.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:20:11 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Hmm.. according to the press release, it was a configuration error.
Hmmm... They're having trouble again today. It sure takes MS a long time to
fix configuration errors.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:17:44 -0600
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> No OS is secure if the administrators ignore sercurity patches.
True, but it's a bit disconcerting to discover that JPL isn't keeping up with
patches.
> Wow, guess what? Red Hat has had fixes for over 4 months.
Hasn't it been longer than that? It has been so long since I installed the
wu-ftp patch that I can hardly remember doing it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:26:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think Linux was considered abolutely secure by stupid people.
No, you are 100% wrong here.
Stupid people have not heard of any OS besides windows.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:30:06 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:56:22 GMT, "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Heh. Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Windows 2000.
> >
> >I got the chance to see the much lauded "Whistler Professional" in action
> >last night. What a worthless piece of shit. I thought WinME was crap, but
> >this sets a whole new standard in worthlessness. It was slow as molasses
on
> >a 700mhz Pentium III. There were a lot of very stupid and useless add ons
in
> >it too, including some bizarre theme manager that will make your desktop
> >look marginally like Aqua (MacOS X).
>
> I got to see it in action last night as well and while it looked nice
> I can agree, at least for Win2k users. I'm still not clear exactly how
> Whistler fits into the Win2k upgrade path though?
I ran winver on this machine and saw "Microsoft Windows Version 5.1 Build
(something or other - can't remember)"
As I understand it, there is going to be Professional and Personal
versions. Personal will be the upgrade from WinME, Professional will be
upgrade from Win2K. Server versions may appear too, I imagine.
I never got to find out whether the personal version will support SMP, nor
NTFS, nor any of the other worthwhile features Microsoft likes to hide from
the poor suckers who are stuck with OEM installs. I ran the "Professional"
edition. I wasn't impressed.
And that aqua type desktop feature. LOL! Even the MacOS lovers I talk to
don't like it on OS X. Why do they think we will want a clone of it?
>
> As for WinME, I see no reason to switch from Win98SE, which has been
> rock solid for me.
Agreed. Had Win2K come out I would never have switched myself. Win98SE plus
some flavor of Unix running dual boot was nirvana for me for a long time.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:30:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It also has all of the miserable steps that one has to endure in
> order to update that miserable system we have come to know as Linsux.
Poor flatfish, he is frantic with rage and confusion over the
fact that Linux is alive and well, and microsoft has Linux as
it's biggest threat -
Surely, if the bizzare caricature painted by flatfish, and other
wintrolls were true, none of us would have ever heard of Linux,
much less be using it.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:23:37 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said ono in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:12:24 +0100;
> >> "The tests that produced the greatest failure rates are the random
Win32
> >> message tests. In the normal course of events, these messages are
> >> produced by the kernel and sent to an application program. It is
> >> unlikely (though not impossible) that the kernel would send messages
> >> with invalid values. Still, these tests are interesting for two
reasons.
> >> First, they demonstrate the vulnerability of this interface. Any
> >> application program can send messages to any other application program.
> >> There is nothing in the Win32 interface that provides any type of
> >> protection. Modern operation systems should provide more durable
> >> firewalls."
> >
> >We're talking about os failures here, not about badly written
applications.
> >btw: The person who made those tests is full of it!
>
> And you know its true, because he put an exclamation point at the end.
C'mon, start thinking. These test are like when you put water into the tank
of a car and measure how long it takes for the engine to die.
Why sould I protect my application in a release build from random data when
the data is always generated on the same machine from the same programs?
You unix/linux people must be really desperate to prove fault in ms software
to take such crap at face-value.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:33:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:51:40 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You really should read what you're commenting about.
>
> They are too busy reading How-To's trying to figure out how to add
> items to their menues.
Right click on menu
Select "add item"
What was your point?
jjs
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:34:55 GMT
Said ono in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:09:06 +0100;
>> Things which suddenly lock up or crash for no good reason are "unstable".
>>
>> Conversely, systems and applications which continue to run (as they should)
>> UNTIL the user or administrator shuts it down are called "stable".
>>
>That's why I run ms stuff only on my pc's (with very few exceptions). Seems
>to be the only way nowadays to have a box that never locks up or crashes. I
>was very happy that ms bought Visio so I could finally run an excellent
>drawing program.
What a maroon.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:37:07 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 25 Jan 2001
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:94nlej$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> : news:94koo1$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> :> Compare this with something that actually is 100%
>>> :> web based like Amazon or Google).
>>>
>>> : And who make USD$0 every year (or USD$-20m or so for Amazon)
>>>
>>> Some people believe that being a big business making big money
>>> makes one more accountable to keep things working right. Your
>>> argument might work to convince such a person. That person
>>> would not be me. The bigger the business, the more momentum
>>> it has. A downed website would not matter as much to a company
>>> for which the website was an AFETRTHOUGHT, and not their core
>>> reason to exist.
>
>> Ah, so these companies who are making billions of dollars have
>> a few things to learn from Amazon who's 20 or so million in the
>> hole, or Red Hat who's a couple million in the hole, right?
>> *Riiiggggghhhhttt*
>
>Seeing as how youve never worked for a company that was anywhere
>NEAR that caliber, you wouldnt know, now would you?
>
>> Regardless of how you wish to BS about it, the web has become
>> an integral part in most, if not all the Fortune 500 businesses.
>
>Youve never worked for any of them. You dont know anyone who does.
>You WISH you did though, your posts are dripping with the desire to
>rub elbows with those whom you consider "the big boys".
>
>I rub elbows with those people, and let me tell you something about
>them:
>
>Theyre just as moronic as everyone else.
Amen, brother.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: 25 Jan 2001 21:41:28 GMT
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> This deciding of buyiong W2K was made by CIO out of town, with none from
:> technical group specially not invited, is this regular for Microsoft
:> sellers to do this sneak attack?
: It's not just Microsoft. I spent a while in IT at a big corporation, and
: technical decisions were usually made by clueless middle managers after
: being wined and dined (and probably other things) by salesmen. Technically
: competent people were never consulted, because they couldn't be relied on
: to give the "right" answer.
Purchasing in general tends to be like that in the large companies
I've worked for or with. :(
Joe
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:33:50 +0100
> I'm not aware of any special problems with 2K's SP1, or are you talking
> about NT's SP?
I had a BugCheck when I applied SP1. When I reinstalled NuMega Driver-Studio
1.5 I had one again. When I reinstalled with Version 2.0 it was OK. On about
20 other machines we had no problem at all.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison by windows buffoon
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:46:54 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> Oh really - tell it to this pro-linux guy who wrote the linux portion:
I don't care who you think is pro Linux, that means nothing.
> Oh, of course, I'm SURE you could NEVER make a mistake while typing that
> long line.
Apparently you can't read. It would have to be the shell
making the mistake of substituting thr wrong letter. That
simply does not happen. It illustrates that you've never
used Linux, and that's why you are batting .000 here.
> Oh - so explain why a reviewer posted to a main page slashdot story who is
> pro-linux got it so wrong.
You are the one who got it wrong - you brag that you can
insert a CD and start a win 2k install, then instead of admitting
that you can also insert a Linux CD and start an install, you
go off on some weird unrelated tangent about how to compile
a kernel from scratch, as if that were of any relevance.
> So, where is the CD for linux 2.4 that can just boot up and install? I was
> talking about linux 2.4 - not RH anything.
Get a clue. 2.4 is a kernel version. That's not something a
non technical end user like yourself should know or care
about. An end user like yourself doesn't deal with kernel
versions, you deal with distributions, e.g Red Hat, SuSE,
Mandrake, Is any of this making sense to you?
> Ahhh, "when... "
I guess I'm not sure what your problem is -
SuSE is shipping 7.1 with the 2.4 kernel next month.
For a painless upgrade of say, Red Hat 7, you bop over
to rawhide and grab the rpm of kernel 2.4.0 and install it
in one easy step.
So much for the fud.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:49:11 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> Oh really? Then perhaps you'll tell me why this article was taken from a
> PRO-LINUX website that was linked to by slashdot...
If there is an article on how to compile a kernel from
scratch, it is clearly not meant for you, or other non
technical end users. It was meant for those who would
like to try compiling a kernel from scratch.
End of story.
Say, how do you do that in windows?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:56:27 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> Then I guess I'm lucky because the 100s (yes, 100s) of installs I've done
> ahve always found, at the very least, a default driver to do the job. Then a
> quick download from windows update and I'm up - or at most I might have to
> visit the manufacturers site for a download. Are you trying to tell me that
> drivers for ALL hardware are bundled with Linux? ahahhahahah
For the most part, that's the big difference - Linux includes
support for the devices, while with windows you are always
having to worry about finding "drivers".
> So, Linux has to pretend it's Windows in oder to get the job done - imation
> is a sincere form of flattery.
Actually not, it would be much better to use a non microsoft
format, but it's amazing what Linux can do in a pinch.
> But, do you really think wine performance is
> as good as native performance? We both know otherwise.
Of course, it you want performance, you're going to run
native Linux apps, not futz around with wine. wine is a
temporary kludge. BTW do you think windows could run
Linux programs at all, let alone at near normal speed?
> Excuse me - are ANY of those products included in the download? Show me any
> distribution tha tincludes SimCity 3000, Unreal Tournament and CorelDraw and
> Gimp and Star Office....
Pardon me but your ignorance is showing.
gimp has been in every Linux distro I've ever seen.
star office and IIRC most of the others come with SuSE
and other distros -
> Didn't say it was... but those are the facts -
No, those are your attempts at fud. I cleared it
up for you, but you ignored the unpleasant facts.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:57:37 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> Wow - what a come back...
>
> So, I guess I must have hit a sore spot.
Yes, you are indeed a sore spot.
What's baffling to us is why you spend all your
time fudding Linux newsgroups. Don't you have
a life?
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
