Linux-Hardware Digest #534, Volume #10 Sat, 19 Jun 99 18:13:47 EDT
Contents:
Can't see modem/"modem busy" error ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 32 versus 64 bit PCI (Gerald Willmann)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Aztech labs AT 3300 driver ("PHammar")
Mounting CD (Gerhard Olejniczak)
Re: Compaq "winBIOS" [was "Booting Headless"] ("Lee Sharp")
Re: TNT2 or 3dfx Voodoo3?... (Aaron and Hifumi)
Re: SV: Adaptec 2940UW and IBM 9ES headache (Lore)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Can't see modem/"modem busy" error
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:32:12 GMT
I'm running mandrake 5.2 and I can't seem to get my modem to work.
It's a 56k PNP isa modem. (it's not a winmodem) I've gone through
pnpdump and isapnp.conf and it recognizes the board, but when I try to
see it with setserial it doesn't see anything on /dev/ttyS3
or /dev/cua3 (which is what my /dev/modem is symlinked to). In M$ it
sees the modem as com4/irq3. when I use kppp, it tells me that the
modem is "busy". The only thing that setserial sees is IRQ4, which is
my serial A port in the bios. I can't jumper the modem (I know...cheap
hardware) so I've got to get it running this way.
Any ideas?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 32 versus 64 bit PCI
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:45:29 -0700
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Robert Herzog wrote:
> Are there other motherboards than INTEL with the wide connectors ?
yes, there are alpha boards with both 32 and 64 bit PCI
Gerald
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 13:08:13 -0700
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:44:53 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I wasn't talking about efficiency. Obviously it would be most efficient to back up
>all your files, do a complete format of your hard drive,
Except here, efficency equates directly into $$$.
>partition the drive into optimal partitions, and then install the OS. However, this
>isn't the simplest root, and the efficiecncy gained is of
>questionable value if you can't get through the procedure. You're mixing ease-of-use
>with efficiency here.
They're mixed in actual practice. That's how one typically
gets 'easy'. Sometimes it's an acceptable tradeoff. Quite,
often it is not.
Quite often, the tradeoff isn't even necessary. However,
it all doesn't matter because you won't hold your vendors
to any sort of standards. They have little motivation to
improve, or to be more sophisticated in their end user
design than a Atari shareware comms package.
>
>>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>
>A better description would be - unnecessary. The average user (and if we're talking
>about ease-of-use, we have to talk about the average
Except ease doesn't have to come at the death of utility.
Even Windows98 itself demonstrates this with the low level
BSD Sockets style utilities that come with it. They can be
quite useful and don't burden the user a damn bit. A nice
side effect of the bsdl I guess: MS may be lazy but it can't
resist a good mooch.
[deletia]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>The key here is *unpartitioned* disk space. Since most computers already come with
>Windows on them, you're right back where you started deleting
>that partition, running Disk Druid, etc. The only way you'd actually be able to
>avoid it is to either buy an unformatted hard drive or to run
>FDISK on the drive you already have. The first option is relatively expensive, the
>second is intimidating to the average user.
Yes, and those 10G hard drives are just soooo expensive...
Then there's the distro that just imbedds partition magic.
Then there's just partition magic itself.
Mind you, this entire problem is merely a side effect of
Microsoft don't wanting to do any real work and just making
a lot of potentially harmful assumptions.
What do you do if you want to install NT?
Will you slag NT now for not having a built in reparitioner?
(wont hold my breath)
[deletia]
>> >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.
>>
>
>Well, it seems that that reputation is not entirely deserved, then, doesn't it? The
>fact is that there's no excuse for a vendor's driver not to
I'd trust people with 10 years in the games industry over some
self serving shill like you. Your word on the matter is simply
insufficient. Tom's Hardware would also be an acceptable arbiter.
[deletia]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a great difference between designing for an OS and designing well for it.
>Simply put, if the drivers for your ATI card came from ATI,
>then ATI is at fault, and not Windows.
That cop out simply isn't good enough. If a bunch of hobbyists
can outdo the largest microcomputer company in the world on
anything, Megalosoft has some problems.
Also, the fact still remains that for certain hardware, it is
better not to use Windows. You may not know what that hardware
is. In order to know what that hardware is, you will have to
learn as much as you would need to know to run any other PC
OS.
[deletia]
>> Redhat didn't. There's a bit of differnce.
>>
>
>True. I sit corrected. Red Hat is, however, supposed to be one of the most
>user-friendly versions of Linux out there
It's a leading commercially oriented distribution and the hardware
that you're describing was on discount 4 years ago.
[deletia]
>> 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.
>>
>
>I was picking the brains of people on #redhat on IRC, actually. Not a bad bunch.
>But this is besides the point. The documentation was lacking,
>as was the seamless support of a legacy device.
Win9x won't seamlessly support that device either. That was
part of the reason that I dumped Win9x 4 years ago.
Mind you, the CD isn't the only way to get Redhat onto such
a machine. FTP, SMB & NFS are also available.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>>
>
>As you can see further up in this article, I make no excuses for ATI. I said several
>times that the ATI drivers were at fault. Exactly how did
>this twisting occur in your mind?
It's not twisting, it's disbelief and non-acceptance. Quite
simply, such bullshit is not acceptable. MS is an overgrown
and predominant vendor as is ATI. If the two of them can't
get together to get it to work than the whole is still flawed.
There are simply too many imbedded ati chipsets floating
around for 'ati just makes crappy drivers' to be an
acceptable answer for those that 'dont want to think
about it'.
Quite simply, Windows isn't yet ready for the consumer.
[deletia]
>> 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.
>>
>
>I won't argue this point. There are certainly some high-end devices (particularly in
>the area of networking and high capacity storage) that run
>better under Linux.
Oooh, another famous copout. I'm not talking about obscure
shit. I'm talking about things they sell and CompUSA for
your novice users that are supposed to be able to handle
Windows (& not Linux) even despite of ATI's 'crummy drivers'.
>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>
>How could you use the control panel before you installed Linux??
Actually, the installation wizard includes it as well.
It's not as pretty, but it asks all the same questions.
This should not need to be told to someone that's ever
had the book in their hands.
>
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>
>My point boils down to this: Take the average user, give them both Linux and Windows
>to try installing, and see who has an easier time of it. My
>money's on the Windows user. If nothing else, it's simply a less foreign OS t
What about those 'nasty ATI drivers'? Mebbe fred will get
bitten by the ATI driver under windows today and barney
next door will get bitten by the Voodoo3 driver not being
a part of Xfree on Linux. The end result is the same.
Windows has no real advantage.
[deletia]
Those that want easy and can afford a Mac should just buy one.
That is what the invisible hand is for...
--
bash: the power to toast your registry in style... |||
/ | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: "PHammar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Aztech labs AT 3300 driver
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:05:05 -0000
Hello,
I have an Aztech labs AT 3300 modem/soundcard/fax/etc.. and have been trying
to find a driver for it in various linux sites without results.
I even mailed Aztech but didn't get a response.
Does anybody have an idea of where to find this (driver if it exists) ?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Gerhard Olejniczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mounting CD
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:40:38 +0000
I often have the problem that I can't mount CDs (about 1 of 4). Sometimes it
works, if I try it again and again.
I think it has something to do with fabrication tolerances and my CD drive seems
to be at one end of tolerances and the CDs I have trouble with are at the other
end. The error message is something like "Cant't find superblock".
>From 'superformat' for floppies, where you can calibrate the rotational speed of
floppy drives, I got the idea, that there might be a tool to calibrate
CD drives. Does anybody know, whether such a tool exists? Is there a tool to
test CD drives?
Thanks
--
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
Gerhard Olejniczak Tel: +49-9128-12090
Mozartstr.1 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D-90592 Schwarzenbruck
------------------------------
From: "Lee Sharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compaq "winBIOS" [was "Booting Headless"]
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:37:55 GMT
Drew M. Mooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<7kdn8j$4t5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Is this thing a frontend to a machine-resident "real" BIOS, or a cheesy
> software replacement for a BIOS chip in the cost saving spirit that
brought
> us such un-grooviness as "winmodems"...
> And is there a safe way of taking it off the drive [or better - bypassing
> it. Remember, this IS a dual-boot machine...] in order to regain some
> semblance of control over the system?
It is a GUI front end to the bios, as well as troubleshooting software.
It ia also less that 10 meg. How short are you on space? Just leave it,
and have it be a Lilo boot option. You can delete it, but will need it
whenever ANYTHING changes, like memory, hard drive...
Lee
--
SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then. *
Black holes are where God divided by zero. - I am speaking as an
individual, not as a representative of any company, organization or other
entity. I am solely responsible for my words.
------------------------------
From: Aaron and Hifumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TNT2 or 3dfx Voodoo3?...
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 17:04:42 -0400
The TNT/TNT2 has open source drivers for it, where as the 3dfx doesn't. They both
support openGL, but the voodoo has better drivers right now. That will change in
the near future though, as the tnt drivers were only recently released in beta.
Expect the TNT2 to rip the V3 to shreds by september.
By the way, quake3 runs alright on my linux box with a tnt using the new drivers
for the tnt, Chad. ;-)
Aaron
Chris Harshman wrote:
> To research this topic yourself, try:
> http://glide.xxedgexx.com/hardware.html
>
> Chad Dale wrote:
> >
> > Uhm, for Linux I would say the Voodoo3. Much better support under Linux than
> > has NVidia. Plus, V3 will play Quake3. If you are going to play games under
> > Win98 only though, I would go with the TNT2 becuase it has much nicer 3D
> > image quality.
> >
> > J. Blair wrote in message ...
> > >what's the better bet for linux? a 16MB TNT2 or a 16MB Voodoo3? i'm about
> > >to buy a computer, and i don't know what video card to put into it. i dual
> > >boot with winblows98, too.
> > >thanks,
> > >jimmy
> > >
> > >
------------------------------
From: Lore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: SV: Adaptec 2940UW and IBM 9ES headache
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:15:25 GMT
Johan,
Just a thought, have you tried taking off every device except for your
new IBM drive? I know you need termination, but don't worry about that
for now, just see if you can even access the drive to
format/partition/etc if no other devices are on the bus.
Kenneth
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Groth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AN wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Have yuo tried to force the drive to SE by jumpering it?
> > =
>
> > Asbj=F8rn
>
> Yes, it's jumpered, all right, but it doesn't work.
>
> ///Johan
>
> -- =
>
> -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
=3D-=
> =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
> "Better to ask questions and seem stupid
> than not to ask questions and remain stupid" -Unknown
> Johan Groth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kupolen Data
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:20:27 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
>
> ...
Another thing you fail to state in your post is that within the documentation
concerning partitions, it states that you should have a swap drive
(it's recommended). Aside from the fact that the documentation is laid out in such a
way that a person with a freshly unpartitioned hard drive
would miss this, this also reintroduces the fact that you have to create more than one
partition (which in turn necessitates either Disk Druid or
FDISK, mounting point terminology, etc., etc. There is no equivalent of Windows'
click-through installation, where the most you have to decide is
what drive you're putting it on. So, the documentation not withstanding, you do
indeed need to understand partitions even for the most basic
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
