Linux-Hardware Digest #573, Volume #10 Thu, 24 Jun 99 06:13:41 EDT
Contents:
Re: HELP ! verrry slloooww reading DAT tape (Chris Wilson)
Re: some BIOS settings
Re: Laser Printer - recommend please (Kostis Mentzelos)
Re: SuSE 6.1 vs RH 5.2 (Kostis Mentzelos)
Re: Compaq proliant 400 dead keyboard (Kostis Mentzelos)
modem connection speed. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: need for Redhat6.0 Iomega ext Parallel 250M zip set up tips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Diamon Viper V770 (Alex S)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (DarkProphet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: HELP ! verrry slloooww reading DAT tape
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 05:04:04 GMT
Unfortunately I tried that too. No difference :(
I think Leon got it right though. It goes to show, working on NT makes
you stupid ;)
Cheers all
Chris
[Everything was going fine until today when the voices in my head told
me that I should stay at home and clean the guns]
John Phillips wrote:
>
> Try setting blksize to 0 for variable block size. Some OS's do not write
> the same block size through a write session.
>
> In comp.os.linux.hardware Leon Garde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In aus.computers.linux Chris Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Just to let everyone know, I have found a work around....but I would
> >> still like to be able to read the tape using the "tar" command.
>
> >> I was able to use the "mt setblk 1024" to set the tape size and then
> >> "dd if=/dev/st0 of=dump bs=1024" followed by a "tar -xvf dump". Great,
> >> it reads at between 10 and 15Mb / minute. Changing "bs=xxx" to anything
> >> else slows everything dowm by orders of magnitude.
>
> > dd if=/dev/st0 bs=1024 | tar xvf -
>
> > would have worked .. without filling up the hard disk .. surely ...
>
> --
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: some BIOS settings
Date: 24 Jun 1999 06:30:54 GMT
Well, I work with Epox boards a lot but I don't think it's really going to
affect Linux one way or another how you set these settings. If you enable
them, then there may be less delay whenever you video card's or computer's
BIOS are called upon to do something but that is just about it for the most
part. I'd try it with them enable first for better performance and disable
them if funny things happen. (My computer has both options enabled and I
have no difficulties)
Ray Schwamberger
Junichi SAITO wrote:
>
> I have a machine dedicated to Linux, based on a MVP3 mainboard
> from EPoX. The BIOS is from Award.
>
> There are two options in the "CHIPSET FEATURES SETUP" menu:
> Video BIOS Cacheable and System BIOS Cacheable. The former is
> documented briefly in the manual, the latter is not.
>
> How do I have to set these options, disable or enable, in respect
> especially with Linux ?
>
>
> --
> junichi
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Kostis Mentzelos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Laser Printer - recommend please
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:48:33 +0300
Yotam Medini wrote:
> Any recommendation for a Laser printer -
> * 600 DPI
> * GhostScript friendly
> * Low cost - considering memory requirements.
> * Works with Linux (of course!)
>
> thanks -- yotam
It is safe to use any HP laser printer. I like very mach the small one
hp laserjet 1100
and 4000N (it is network printer) with Ghostscript you have to use
option -sDEVICE=laserjet
------------------------------
From: Kostis Mentzelos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SuSE 6.1 vs RH 5.2
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:44:31 +0300
Kyle Hittle wrote:
> i recently obtained a copy of SuSE LiNUX 6.1 and i was previously using RH
> 5.2. i can't seem to get anything working in SuSE and was wondering about
> some opinions of both, which would be better suited to my needs? i am using
> LiNUX as a web host for varios domains and i also have a home system.
>
> Any Opiions Would Be Nice
>
> kyle
I am using SUSE linux and I like it more than any other. I have seen other
distributions included Red Hat linux and slackware.
But I thing that if you are familiar with RedHat and you like it there is no
reason to change
distribution. Have you seen RedHat 6.0 ?
------------------------------
From: Kostis Mentzelos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compaq proliant 400 dead keyboard
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:38:49 +0300
I don't know. I am using the default keyboard that came with the machine.
I have to check this but I think that I have had the same problem when I
connect
my keyboard (it is working fine) to compaq proliant 400.
Tony Platt wrote:
> Are you using the Genuine Compaq Keyboard ???
>
> Compaqs can get a bit fussy over their keyboards
>
> Tony
>
>
> >I have installed linux my compaq proliant 400 and there is a problem:
> >there are a possibility (30%) the keyboard will be dead after reboot.
>
> >Kostis Mentzelos.
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: modem connection speed.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:37:12 GMT
An internal server at my company was set up by a past employee. The
boss dials into this server (ppp). The server is a pentium II running
redhat 5.1. The modem is an internal sportster at /dev/ttyS2 (ati3:
"U.S. Robotics Sportster 56000 Voice V4.3.172", ati0: "5601", ati1:
"11B1").
The connection speed is too slow for the boss. He wants to connect at
56k. I believe it is now connecting at 24k (I haven't connected in with
ppp, but dialing in (and answering) with minicom, the connect string on
the server side says CONNECT 24000).
The guy who set the server up originally said he had unsucessfully
searched the web for a modem driver for it (which struck me as weird,
since all the modem coding I've done has just involved termios stuff).
My boss instructed me to search now (a year after the server's
inception) to see if that driver is available. I haven't found anything
on redhat.com or 3com.com on linux sportster driver info. (I did note
that the X2 model 1785 sportster was taken off the incompatible harware
list [appendix E to the hardware compatability HOWTO] -- any
implications?)
The current setup in /etc/rc.d/rc.local is "/bin/setserial /dev/ttyS2
auto_irq skip_test autoconfig spd_vhi". After bootup, "stty -a
</dev/ttyS2" returns that the speed is at 115200 baud.
Anyone know if it is possible to increase this speed? Is there some
special driver for this? Let me know.
Thanks,
AED
[Here's the full output of "stty -a </dev/ttyS2", if helpful.]
# stty -a </dev/ttyS2
speed 115200 baud; rows 0; columns 0; line = 0;
intr = ^C; quit = ^\; erase = ^?; kill = ^U; eof = ^D; eol = <undef>;
eol2 = <undef>; start = ^Q; stop = ^S; susp = ^Z; rprnt = ^R; werase =
^W;
lnext = ^V; flush = ^O; min = 1; time = 0;
-parenb -parodd cs8 hupcl -cstopb cread clocal crtscts
-ignbrk -brkint -ignpar -parmrk -inpck -istrip -inlcr -igncr -icrnl
-ixon
-ixoff -iuclc -ixany -imaxbel
-opost -olcuc -ocrnl -onlcr -onocr -onlret -ofill -ofdel nl0 cr0 tab0
bs0 vt0
ff0
-isig -icanon -iexten -echo -echoe -echok -echonl -noflsh -xcase -tostop
-echoprt -echoctl -echoke
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: need for Redhat6.0 Iomega ext Parallel 250M zip set up tips
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:46:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi all:
>
> If possible please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Anyone knows how to set up the ext Parallel 250M (or 100M) zip drive?
> I had do search and search and try many different things and still no
> luck:
I am using a parallel Iomega ZIP 100M with RedHat 5.2 (Kernel 2.0.36)
and it works fine:
insmod ppa (as root)
mount /mnt/zip
This is all what I have to do in order to acces to my ZIP.
Did you compile your kernel with ppa and SCSI support as a module?
The printer has also to be compiled as a module in your kernel otherwise
it won't work.
Good Luck,
Patrick
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Alex S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Diamon Viper V770
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:15:01 -0800
Does any one know where I can find a SUSE 5.3 driver for a
Diamond Viper V770.
I'm not sure that there is one yet, if there isnt where is
the first place I can expect to find one.
Thanks
Alex Salter
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:16:17 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> Alex Lam wrote:
>
> > Brian Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > 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??
> > >
> > I can install Linux on a fresh clean drive without my involvement in
> > partitioning it as well. At least SuSE 6.0 and later can do it with its
> > automated installer.
> >
>
> You could do one partition under Red Hat, as well, but it's not recommended,
> because a swap partition really makes life easier. The other thing, though, is
> that most users going to Linux aren't starting off with a "fresh clean drive". At
> present, to even have any interest in Linux, you have to have some prior computer
> involvement, which means involvement with Windows. And that means your drive
> isn't going to be clean.
>
No, with SuSE, even if I use its automated installer, it still creates
the swap partition,/ , /var, /etc and so on.
Well. I did have prior computer involvement, dated back to DOS.
If you have clean out enough space from a Windoze HD, then, basically,
you're installing clean. You just have to point the installer to the
correct drive partition.
> >
> > And it detected EVERYTHING correctly on the 1st pass.
> >
> > > 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).
> > >
> > Bull. I have Linux/Win NT/Win98 triple boots in one of my boxes. It's
> > not that hard to set up.
> >
>
> "Not that hard" is relative. Most of the people on this list, myself included,
> are "techies", to one degree or another. Dual-booting NT and 95 is relatively
> simple. Booting NT and Linux is less-so, because you have to deal with fips, and
> therefore with deleting your swapfile under NT (which NT puts at the end of your
> hard drive, therefore taking the space that fips needs away).
>
I'm no guru with any OS. But I did it without much difficulty. Just do
your homework, and have a plan clearly planned out.
> >
> > And now, with vmware, you can install Linux, then install all the
> > Windoze you like, and have your Windoze running from inside Linux almost
> > like running in its own native mode. Can Windoze do that?
> >
>
> In the first place, running a Windows emulator inside of Linux is unnecessary and
> foolish. You end up with slower Windows apps and a bogged-down system. Much
> better to just do a dual-boot and have all apps running in their native OS's. In
> the second place, Windows doesn't *have* to develop an emulator for Linux, because
> it's not Windows that has the software famine.
>
Windoze is slooooooooooooow anyway, especially Win98. (I have at least
128MB of PC-100 RAM in all my boxes. So...)
Windoze has been around for decades, so, it should have more software
available, but Linux is catching up fast. Sybase, MySQL, Oracles, Word
Perfect, and a whole slew of others are porting over to Linux. If Linux
is not a major thread to Windoze, do you think all those companies will
support Linux? (Don't forget Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, Intel's, Mac/Apple
are betting on Linux as well.)
True. Linux is not that mature yet. But Windoze is no better. Windoze is
still basically a bloated beta ware.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > Soundblaster/Creative Labs is well known to be very uncooperative with
> > Linux developers, until very recently.
> >
>
> I didn't think Linux relied on cooperation. It was my understanding that code
> wizards simply worked with a piece of hardware until they found a workaround. But
> even this lack of cooperation is telling. Many users would suffer from using an
> OS where they had to hope either that someone cared enough to work without the
> corporate cooperation or that the company making their product decided to
> cooperate with Linux developers.
>
You're missing my point here. Even companies that are fully cooperating
with M$, many of the drivers and such are still buggy as hell. So, Linux
is not worst than M$.
> >
> > And NT didn't even recognize the old modem it has been running with for
> > 4 years after my last reinstallation (one of the routine once every
> > couple months requirement to keep NT alive.)
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > Yes, to a certain degree, but the progress on Linux has been moving at
> > very high speed, and new drivers, patches and what not are showing up
> > almost on a daily bases.
> >
>
> I agree there's progress being made (which is one of the reasons I decided to try
> Linux) but they aren't home yet. Until they are, it will be a considerable hurdle
> for some users.
>
To me. Windoze is total crap. Win98 crashes daily, NT crashes weekly,
Just did a total reinstall with NT (NT committed suicide a few days ago,
it just trashed itself in a big way while doing absolutely nothing -
reformatted the HD, then started from square one.)Then reinstalled sp-3,
then NT did another core dump on me when I clicked on the start button
on the menu. Then it did it again the next day when I clicked on the
browser...
Both NT and Win98 will be history as soon as I have time to get the data
out. I'm going to nuke them both. No more M$ craps.
> >
> > > 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. ;)
> > >
> > Wrong. Linux is hard to install/use only to those who have been poisoned
> > by M$.
>
> That's a hell of a large pool of people, though, considering M$'s position in the
> market.
>
In fact, people who actually go out and buy Linux have already out
numbered those who buy M$Windoze. The reason why M$ has such a large
user base is because of its strong arm tactics with pc vendors to bundle
Windoze with every pc they sell for decades... Look at the market now,
see how many vendors are selling the hardware without Windoze pre
installed, and / or offering Linux as an option.
> >
> >
> > I've taught two totally computer newbies to install and use Linux. And
> > non of them have any problem with the basic stuff; because they started
> > with a clean mind, without any M$ poison in their head. So, your point
> > is questionable.
> >
>
> It's still a valid point, because most of the people in the market *don't* have
> that uncluttered mind. Frankly, I think you'd have to just have emerged from a
> mountaintop in deep spiritual contemplation for the past 10 years not to have some
> of that M$ poison in your blood.
>
I have been using Windoze since 3.0. But still. It's not hard to wipe M$
off my brain.
Alex Lam.
> >
> > Alex Lam.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
> > Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
> > **************************************************
> > *If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
> > I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
> > domain has been forged many times.
> > **************************************************
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
*If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
domain has been forged many times.
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: DarkProphet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:53:24 -0500
Brian Hartman wrote:
> > When Win95 has problems, you're up a creek. When Linux has
> > >> problems, you can solve them.
> > >>
>
> On this point, I keep coming back to certain devices: If you have a Winprinter,
> you're up the creek if you move to Linux. (Trust me. I have an HP 820Cse.
> I know about these things. ;))
> And even those fixes that *are* available (through ghostscript or ppa2pbm, for
> expample) are kludges of the first order, comparable to getting your engine to
> work with a well-placed coat hanger.
While it may not be the best solution to the problem, isn't it nice to know that
such things can be done?
> >I had to install my
> >56K modem as a "Standard Modem" and then turn the compression up to 115400, for
> >example. And if you've got an MCSE, you're not an average user, anyway.
I had to do the same thing with my modem in Windoze... problem is, the Standard
Modem driver in windoze doesn't support all the features of my modem. (and I admit,
neither does Linux, out of the box, but at least its possible to work around that)
>
> If you look at sales, Windows outsells Linux by a wide margin. (I think we
> can all concede that.) The fact that a specific company that sells Unix boxes
> was mentioned lends credence to the point that you have to look pretty hard to
> find an off the shelf Unix box. In most situations, if a user is going to be
> installing a new OS, they're going to go from Windows 95 to something else. If
> that "something else" is Unix, they've got a long road ahead of them. Drives
> aren't even referred to the same way in Unix as in DOS. While it's a minor
> point, it can add to a novice's confusion.
I think it would also be fair to point out that UNIX has never been a desktop OS.
MS has been a desktop OS (of sorts) since day one. UNIX only now is starting to
enter into the desktop scene, and when it has to compete with Microsoft, its no
wonder that its hard to find an off the shelf UNIX box. Also, many novices don't
realize that they have a choice in what system that they buy at all. If you're to
ask a novice what comes to mind when they hear the word 'computer', 3 things are
likely to come up: "windows", "mac", and "solitaire". In this regard, Microsoft has
an advantage of being a 'household brand', and given a choice, most novices would
probably go with something they heard of before, (not UNIX)
>
> Another point I'd like to make: I upgraded my kernel last night, and it was
> way more difficult than anything Windows ever put me through. The upgrade had
> at least 12 steps to it, none of which are handled programatically or even
> cued. The whole process took about an hour and a half the first time, after
> which I discovered I hadn't included PPP in the kernel, and therefore couldn't
> get out on the net. So I tried again. And again. Finally I realized I was
> missing a step and had to do it one more time. I started the process at around
> 12 and didn't finish until 4:30. How does that compare with installing a
> Service Pack? (which kernel upgrades are roughly equivalent to) Windows has a
> big jump on Unix when it comes to usability, and the novice benefits from it.
> It's only when the user outgrows the novice stage that they realize what they
> give up for that usability. But to say that Unix is just as easy to install as
> Windows is silliness.
I am wondering how you went about compiling your kernel. make xconfig is a very
easy way to select options for compiling your kernel (and even tells you what
options you'll be most likely to want to set). Armed with that, and your
distribution's "Installing Kernel" chapter, this is definately NOT a terribly hard
task. The first time I compiled a kernel, it took 45 minutes (this includes reading
what I was supposed to do, making my choices in xconfig, and the compilation
itself). Mind you, this is all a relatively moot point, as novice users aren't all
that likely to go around trying to compile kernels. But, even if they decide to do
so, its no more difficult than installing your distribution to begin with
> Once it's installed, Linux might be a better OS for the novice user, because
> things are less likely to break down than under Windows. BUT that's only
> provided the user can understand how things work in the first place (including
> how to deal with /etc/fstab). Therefore, when you say Linux is good for
> novices, I think you need to make a distinction between maintenance-free
> (provided you never upgrade the kernel) and easy to use. While Linux might have
> fewer maintenance problems, it's ease of use needs serious improvement before
> it's "easy to install" (which this thread is supposed to be about, anyway).
I've been using Windoze for 7 years, and I was pretty fluent in the ways of Windoze
and was pretty used to doing things in the Windoze fashon. But, I decided to give
Linux a shot.
I got RedHat 5.1 (off FTP, for no charge, so I figured I had nothing to lose)
I'll admit, getting the partitions set wasn't a particularly easy task, but I
didn't have the installation manual (since I had downloaded RH5.1 and not bought
it).
I got ahold of a RedHat5.1 Install manual and READ it. After that, partitioning,
along with the rest of the install, was a piece of cake. The simple fact remains
that if you are going to install ANY OS, you need to RTFM and know what you are
doing before you do it.
I think the main reason it could be argued that Windoze is easy to install is well,
you just run setup.exe and pretty much twiddle your thumbs for an hour. You have
very little choice about how things get set up (which, for novice users, is
generally a Good Thing(TM), since you can pretty much skip reading the install
manual)
Few choices is not always good. For example, EVERY TIME I install Win98, when it
boots for the first time, it hangs and crashes. And rebooting doesn't help. I have
to enter safe mode and start messing with the system setup. (incidentally, the
problem keeping Windoze from booting has been different damn near every time). I
would much rather install something like linux, and have to deal with a few choices
during the install (which are all covered in the install manual, of course) than
install a system with no choices and then wonder why the hell it won't boot.
>
> Every OS has some driver issues. I'll concede that. And driver issues are
> a pain in the ass in every OS. I'll concede that, too. But device for device,
> you're going to have less problems at the novice level with Windows. Plus,
> there are just more drivers out there.
I'll agree with this. For the most part, it is easier. But its a helluva lot more
inconsistant.
I've installed (uh, I mean REINSTALLED) Win98 on the same machine maybe 5 or 6
times, and EVERY TIME, it fails to detect and/or configure one of the devices it
configured fine the last time I installed. What the hell is up with that? Gah, at
least with Linux, if you do manage to get a driver for your devices it will either
work, or it won't. Same results everytime. (Thats got to make developing a driver
easier, I'd think)
--
#-------------------------------------------------#
| | | | | | ` |
| | | | | | ` |
| | | | | |~\ ` |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | / , |
| | | | ~ , |
| | | | , |
| | | | |~~~ |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
|XYPHOID TECHNOLOGIES: WHERE DID YOU GO YESTERDAY?|
#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
