Linux-Hardware Digest #531, Volume #10 Sat, 19 Jun 99 12:13:16 EDT
Contents:
AST FOURPORT card -- config (David Lesher)
ASUS P2BDS i440BX motherboard? (Alex Lam)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Yamaha XG 64V Wavetable soundcard compatible? (Dev Null)
Re: driver for G400Max (Sid Boyce)
Re: IBM PS/2 maximum serial port speed? (Joe Kovacs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Lesher)
Subject: AST FOURPORT card -- config
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Lesher)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 14:16:00 GMT
I want to add a 2nd AST Fourport card to my box.
Has anyone here done so? Were you sucessful at sharing one IRQ
between both cards [something AST claimed a pair of these could
do]?
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ASUS P2BDS i440BX motherboard?
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:35:35 -0700
Does the ASUS P2BDS i440BX Built-in Adaptec 7890 U2/W/SCSI
works well with SuSE Linux or FreeBSD?
Can't find info on the data base at SuSE.
Thanks.
Alex Lam.
*Remove all the upper case Xs if reply by e mail.
------------------------------
From: Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:27:39 -0400
Rod Roark wrote:
> Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Working with Linux is *much* more difficult than working with Windows for
> >an install...
>
> Um, no. Just this past weekend I tried to install Win 98 on a machine for
> dual boot with NT 4.0. '98 would not work with the ATI video card (except
> in 640x480 16-color), with or without the vendor-supplied drivers. Also
> somewhere in the course of the install it lost the ability to see the
> (standard ATAPI) CD-ROM drive.
>
How often have you had to partition anything in order to get Windows
installed? You can install Windows on a clean hard disk with one partition
with absolutely no fuss, just going through the steps. By contrast, in order
to install Linux, you have to deal with Disk Druid and partitions and mount
points and swap files. You can't seriously tell me this is less difficult
than Windows, can you??
In the first place, dual-boots are always a lot harder to set up than
plain-vanilla installs. Secondly, the problem you seemed to be having isn't
with Windows, but with ATI. There are plenty of badly-written drivers out
there for both platforms. And NT's support for hardware isn't much better
than Linux's (particularly because Win9x drivers access the hardware in ways
NT doesn't allow).
>
> Even worse, it trashed the NT installation, and NT after that could
> not even be reinstalled until after I finally figured out that the
> active-partition flag had to be re-set (the NT install made no provision
> for this, I had to do it via Linux fdisk). It seems Win95 had silently
> changed it.
>
I've had numerous problems with my 95/NT dual-boot system. Generally, the
way it works is this: Install 95 first, then install NT from within 95.
That's always worked for me without a hitch. Again, once you actually get
things installed is when the real fun begins. At the very least, if you knew
your video card supported SVGA, you should have been able to select standard
SVGA drivers for the install and gotten it up and running fine in 1024x768.
>
> Then I had to reinstall the ATI driver for NT. Well it didn't work there
> either, and I finally found out from ATI's web site that you have to
> upgrade to Service Pack 3 before it will work (the included instructions
> did not mention this little detail). God only knows what you have to do
> to get it working with '98. And I can't count the number of times I had
> to reboot the machine in the course of the above.
>
Again, your problem here is with the video card, not the OS. I don't know if
you tried this, but you might want to try just setting it up with standard
SVGA drivers included with the system. That's what I had to do with my NT
install. If we're gonna talk about hardware problems, let's talk about the
fact that when I was doing my Linux install not only did Linux not recognize
my CD-ROM (which is a standard SoundBlaster CD-ROM that's been around for
God-knowns-how-many years) but even after install, trying to get it to mount
was an excercise in frustration. After wading through the HOWTO information
(which was both incomplete and incorrect) I was finally able to cobble
together a solution that was suitable. It's now almost 2 weeks after I got
my Linux CD, and I'm just now able to mount and unmount the CD-ROM through
the GUI.
>
> This "easy to install" MS Windows myth is indeed, as the title so
> eloquently states, bullshit. It's only easy if you're doing just what
> MS thinks you should be doing, nothing more.
>
Linux not only demands that you install software just so, but it also limits
your hardware to whatever freelance developers decide to develop drivers and
jerry-rigs for. It's obviously not Linux's "fault", bit drivers for Linux
are much harder to come by than for Windows. Hell, I'm still trying to
figure out how to print to my printer. There's not an OS out there that
doesn't demand that you install hardware in a specific procedure. The
procedure for installing Linux happens to be (on average, on a system with
all main components compatible) much more drawn-out and complicated than with
Win9x or NT.
None of this is really meant to say that Linux is a bad operating system. In
general, I like Linux, and would probably recommend it to anyone I knew that
could handle setting it up. I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy to
install.as Windows, your charming little anecdotes to the contrary. ;)
>
> By the way I'm no newbie; I've been developing software (including for
> MS Windows) for 25 years.
>
> -- Rod
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
> http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:45:27 -0700
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:54:22 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:04:19 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >"Martin A. Boegelund" wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <7imhtp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> "Roberto Leibman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> >there. Thirdly, hardware support for Linux is way behind that for
>> >Windows. Couple this with the fact that people buy hardware thinking
>>
>> So? This is an obvious non-reason. The 'other platforms' will
>> always be behind the market gorilla. This is no good reason to
>> ignore other platforms, especially if you get get done what
>> you need to.
>
>People don't (and shouldn't) buy computers or operating systems simply for what they
>want to do now. They buy them thinking about what they want to do in the future. If
>your OS doesn't support certain hardware well, (say, parallel port scanners) then it's
>not going to be a good deal for you if you could ever see yourself needing such a
Why are you EVEN whining about this sort of thing. There are no less
than 3 types of interfaces you can get your scanners in. There is no
compelling reason to be shedding any crocodile tears over needing
to by the Umax Astra 610S over the 610P.
>thing. If it's something that's far enough down the road that it might be supported
>by
>then, that's another issue, but to say hardware support is a "non-issue" is kind of
>disingenuous. You always want the maximum expandability in your system.
Except maximum is not what's needed, sufficient is. That's why all
these bandwagon PC arguements that have been spewed over the last
20 years are such a load of hooey. You don't need the whole of
compUSA: just what you want or think you will want.
Nevermind that future needs can be well planned for as opposed
to having a random set legacy parts to deal with.
>
>>
>>
>> While the knowledge to stay away from a parallel port scanner
>> is somewhat of a burden, it is no more burdensome than what
>> any Windows user needs to know in order not to end up with junk.
The latest spew from www.zdnet.com on the matter
backs me upon on this actually. You simply have
to know the product or suffer "used car salesmen".
>>
>> >it'll be easy to set up, only to find when they switch to Linux that it's
>> >designed for Windows. Linux requires a great deal more initial planning
>> >before you set it up, whereas most of the problems with Windows happen
>> >*after* you install it.
>>
>> You just need to make sure that what you have will work well with
>> the new OS if you're upgrading an old machine. However, Win9x
>> upgrades can be just as troubling in this respect.
>
>That's not all you need to know to set up Linux. You also need to know how to deal
>with
>Disk Druid, where you want to mount what (and what a mount point is, which puts some
>newbies at a loss) and how much space you need for things like a swap file. These
Actually, there are canned configurations for that as well.
are
>all initial considerations you need to take into account. And that's just if you want
>to have Linux only on your system. It's another story if you want a dual-boot between
>Linux and Win9x or NT. (Incidentally, many users dual-boot, just to have access to
>the
>kind of apps, like databases, that Linux doesn't have yet.)
Linux doesn't have databases? What are you on? UNIX in general
is THE database platform.
>
>My point was that most hardware is designed out-of-the-box to work with Win9x. While
>this is certainly not a Microsoft virtue, it's unavoidable, and makes Windows
>installation much easier for the average user.
No it doesn't. That "design" doesn't necessarily get you anywhere.
The hardware facilities that genuinely work, do so at a fundemental
level that the OS has nothing to do with. Those facilities are open
to any OS to use (Linux uses them) with the only real issue being
the existence of the driver.
[deletia]
--
bash: the power to toast your registry in style... |||
/ | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:07:51 -0700
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:27:39 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rod Roark wrote:
>
>> Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>How often have you had to partition anything in order to get Windows
>installed? You can install Windows on a clean hard disk with one partition
>with absolutely no fuss, just going through the steps. By contrast, in order
Yup, this was especially nice before FAT32 was widely available.
Castration is a double edged sword. Sure it's dead simple, however
is it also risks becoming useless.
Sure it was 'easy', it also wasted a shitload of drive space.
>to install Linux, you have to deal with Disk Druid and partitions and mount
>points and swap files. You can't seriously tell me this is less difficult
>than Windows, can you??
A better description would be: complete.
Although, you're spreading misinformation anyways.
http://www.redhat.com/corp/support/manuals/RHL-6.0-Manual/install-guide/manual/doc021.html
2.8 Disk Partitions
Nearly every modern-day operating system uses disk partitions, and Red Hat Linux is no
exception. When installing Red Hat Linux, it will be
necessary to work with disk partitions. If you have not worked with disk partitions
before (or would like a quick review of the basic concepts)
please read Appendix C before proceeding.
Please Note: If you intend to perform a workstation- or server-class installation, and
you already have sufficient unpartitioned disk space,
you do not need to read this section, and may turn to Section 2.9. Otherwise, please
read this section in order to determine the best approach
to freeing disk space for your Red Hat Linux installation.
...
>
>In the first place, dual-boots are always a lot harder to set up than
>plain-vanilla installs. Secondly, the problem you seemed to be having isn't
>with Windows, but with ATI. There are plenty of badly-written drivers out
>there for both platforms. And NT's support for hardware isn't much better
Except ATI is supposed to have one of the best reputations when
it comes to quality and maturity level of drivers.
>than Linux's (particularly because Win9x drivers access the hardware in ways
>NT doesn't allow).
This is a lame excuse. Accessing the hardware is what device drivers do.
[deletia]
>> did not mention this little detail). God only knows what you have to do
>> to get it working with '98. And I can't count the number of times I had
>> to reboot the machine in the course of the above.
>>
>
>Again, your problem here is with the video card, not the OS. I don't know if
How can it be? Everyone is supposed to be 'designing for Win9x'
after all. This is the predominant OS, all other competitors
COMBINED are 1/10th less the size. This is the great cash cow
everyone is pandering too.
Quite simply: bullocks.
>you tried this, but you might want to try just setting it up with standard
>SVGA drivers included with the system. That's what I had to do with my NT
>install. If we're gonna talk about hardware problems, let's talk about the
>fact that when I was doing my Linux install not only did Linux not recognize
>my CD-ROM (which is a standard SoundBlaster CD-ROM that's been around for
Redhat didn't. There's a bit of differnce.
>God-knowns-how-many years) but even after install, trying to get it to mount
>was an excercise in frustration. After wading through the HOWTO information
>(which was both incomplete and incorrect) I was finally able to cobble
>together a solution that was suitable. It's now almost 2 weeks after I got
>my Linux CD, and I'm just now able to mount and unmount the CD-ROM through
>the GUI.
Mebbe you should use news archive services more often.
Mind you, there are GUI mounters that are no more
complicated to deal with than searching a file archive,
downloading and installing.
>
>>
>> This "easy to install" MS Windows myth is indeed, as the title so
>> eloquently states, bullshit. It's only easy if you're doing just what
>> MS thinks you should be doing, nothing more.
>>
>
>Linux not only demands that you install software just so, but it also limits
>your hardware to whatever freelance developers decide to develop drivers and
>jerry-rigs for. It's obviously not Linux's "fault", bit drivers for Linux
Which includes things like video capture boards, RAID controllers
and flatbed scanners. How do you even get off spewing this when
in this same article you are trying to make excuses for one of the
biggest and oldest video vendors in the biz: ATI.
My Linux box runs (and runs well) some hardware that the pedestrian
Windows users in the family weren't even aware of before I mentioned
that I was using such.
>are much harder to come by than for Windows. Hell, I'm still trying to
>figure out how to print to my printer. There's not an OS out there that
>doesn't demand that you install hardware in a specific procedure. The
>procedure for installing Linux happens to be (on average, on a system with
>all main components compatible) much more drawn-out and complicated than with
>Win9x or NT.
I just used the control panel.
>
>None of this is really meant to say that Linux is a bad operating system. In
>general, I like Linux, and would probably recommend it to anyone I knew that
>could handle setting it up. I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy to
>install.as Windows, your charming little anecdotes to the contrary. ;)
Except they're not just little anecdotes. Furthermore, those post
install problems are nothing to gloss over. Win98 even can't be
expected to keep on working reliably once installed.
Gump would be better off with an Apple.
[deletia]
--
bash: the power to toast your registry in style... |||
/ | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: Dev Null <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Yamaha XG 64V Wavetable soundcard compatible?
Date: 19 Jun 1999 15:29:38 GMT
I am planning to buy a Dell Dimension V400c and it comes with the
following sound card:
Yamaha XG 64V Wavetable Sound
Has anybody got this sound card working under Linux? Is is supported
under Linux? I couldn't find any information about it in the RedHat
Linux Hardware Compatibility list. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
- Dev
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:47:59 +0000
From: Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: driver for G400Max
I reead on slashdot that support is most likely to be in Xfree86-4.0 by
the end of this year, but my guess is we'll see it before that, perhaps
in beta form.
Regards
Sid.
===============================
Kill!Bill wrote:
>
> Man that card is gonna rock...I hope some people come up with a Linux
> solution.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------
> - Killing in the name off ; clan "DRoME" (Q2) , clan "Dark Matter" (Q3a) -
> - Visit www.clanbase.com , The Cradle of the Dutch QII scene. -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------
>
> GATTI Marc wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Hi,
> >I would like to know if the driver for Matrox G400Max exists. If not can
> >you tell when I will be able to get it. In particular, will it be in the
> >next release of XFree86 that will be able to handle two screen on the
> >same time?
> >Thank you.
> >
--
... Sid Boyce...Amdahl(Europe)...44-121 422 0375
-----------------------------------
Any opinions expressed above are mine and do not necessarily represent
the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corporation.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Kovacs)
Subject: Re: IBM PS/2 maximum serial port speed?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Kovacs)
Date: 19 Jun 1999 14:25:00 GMT
In <7kfd0p$8mq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Georg
Schwarz) writes:
>I'm thinking of using an IBM PS/2 with Linux 2.0.35 as a dial in server
>for a modem.
>PS/2 model 55 SX (I think 386SX16), 4 MB RAM
>PS/2 model 70 and model 80 (I believe 386DX20), 6 MB RAM
>
>what is the maximum serial port speed for each model, and what could they
>handle from their overall performace?
For the 70 and 80, it depends. The original few PS/2s in 1987
came out with an infamous defective 16550 UART, which was
quickly corrected. Its big buffer didn't work, so it operated
like a 16450. It was corrected quickly.
So if you have one of the few original Model 70(?) and 80, the
serial port will run at 38K.
But almost all of the 70s and 80s will run at 56K. No doubt
yours is one of these.
The 55SX is a slightly later issue and, no doubt, will run at
56K.
The way to know the maximum serial port speed is to hook up
the modem, set the port speed to 56K and try it. If it's a
defective UART, it won't work out. But it'll work fine at
38K. You'll know, it's black & white.
For performance, they're all the strongest of computers, being
IBM PS/2. The Model 80 is a real classic server, the very
first one. The other two are clients with a nice small
footprint. Otherwise what you see, CPU-wise and RAM-wise, is
what you get.
I don't know what the linux requirements are. But otherwise I
think they'll be ideal for this application. This is what the
Model 80 was designed for. You put it in a closet with good
clean ventilation, turn it on, close the door and forget it.
There are lots of stories where they ran for five+ years like
that.
Joe Kovacs
Guelph Ontario Canada
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Hardware Digest
******************************
