Linux-Hardware Digest #595, Volume #10 Sat, 26 Jun 99 05:13:43 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Ed Power)
Re: Hardware List? ("R.K.Aa")
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ed Power <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:55:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tsmanlyman wrote:
>
> Here are the steps that I followed to recompile my first kernel after 2 weeks
> of experience with linux:
>
> make menuconfig
> make dep clean zlilo modules modules_install
> reboot
>
> Add 2 steps prior to that for a complete upgrade:
>
> get source
> unpack source
>
> I did this 2 weeks after my very first Linux install. What took YOU so long?
>
> My windows installs went like this:
>
> 1. Realize you don't have a dos disk that will talk to your cd rom
> 2. Get one from a friend (note that if you don't have any friends, you cannot
> install windows.)
> 3. re-write your config.sys and autoexec.bat files because your friend has a
> different computer (if you don't remember dos or never knew, you cannot install
> windows.)
> 4. Once the CD can be accessed, type setup at the prompt. Pray that it does
> not crash.
> 5. Answer all questions, pray that it does not crash (if it does, try again
> and hope that it does not crash)
> 6. ooo I forgot. Hope that you have the CD key (without this you cannot
> install windows.)
> 7. reboot (again, pray that it does not crash.. this one happened to me twice
> in a row on a single 98 full install on a clean hard drive.)
> 8. If you crashed, do it again.
>
> My first linux install went like this:
> 1. Place CD in drive, turn on.
> 2. Answer questions concerning partitioning (at least it asked me!!!); follow
> recommendations in the manual (if no manual, go with one big partition)
> 3. answer question concerning MY computer.. not the one windows assumes I
> have
> 4. select everything install (for redhat anyway)
> 5. reboot when it sez to
>
> There ya go. My first install of windows was MUCH more problematic than my
> first install of linux. Why? The CDs are usually bootable, and they don't crash
> during install. I don't understand why so many ppl claim to have so many
> problems installing linux.
I can relate to that. Prior to running Linux, I was running Windows
95. I had a 100 meg IDE drive on C: and a 1 gig SCSI drive on D:.
Windows 95 took to installing itself on D: and then constantly
complained about lacking diskspace.
Linux installed on drive D: without problems. I had problems trying to
get certain programs to run because of missing libraries, etc. But,
Linux is stable. I do not have to reboot my machine 10 times a day to
get my hard drive space back or to make a connection with my internet
provider.
I would have to do a fresh install every month. It would take two or
thre attempts before it finally installed without hitch. And then I
would have to reinstall all of my Windows 95 programs. I would lose a
whole day or two of work. Then I would lose all of my long filenames.
It would work fine for about two weeks. Then all of my programs would
start speaking Chinese. Every program I would try to install would
install in Chinese. My printer would print Chinese.
I would experiment with different backed up registry versions. My ppp
would stop working for no reason, and I would need to reinstall all of
my networking files. I eventually found out that if shut down my
machine, booted into Windows 95 and then did a warm reboot then I could
log in.
I got smart. I sold my copy of Windows 95. I dumped my internet
provider (World123). You can only connect with a Windows 95 or NT
machine. Now I run Netscape 6 with 8 search windows open at a time, and
my netscape crashes once or twice a day. Much better than having to
reboot 10-15 times a day.
Windows 98 is supposed to fix all the bugs that Windows 95 had. Why
even bother? I run regular Windows when I need to do something that
Linux can't do. Oh yea, my credit card processing software refused to
install in Windows 95. I had to get a special version for Windows 3.1.
Microsoft sucks plain and simple. Their buggy software is extremely
overpriced. Linux is much more stable and cheaper :) than Microsoft
will ever be.
--
Ed Power
Proprietor
Computer Headaches
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~powercomputersystems
Web: http://www.ComputerHeadaches.com
------------------------------
From: "R.K.Aa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Hardware List?
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:12:39 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone has a list of compatible hardware for RedHat 6.0? Thanks.
http://www.redhat.com/corp/support/hardware/index.html
------------------------------
From: Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:06:43 -0400
Ed Power wrote:
> Tsmanlyman wrote:
> >
> > Here are the steps that I followed to recompile my first kernel after 2 weeks
> > of experience with linux:
> >
> > make menuconfig
> > make dep clean zlilo modules modules_install
> > reboot
> >
> > Add 2 steps prior to that for a complete upgrade:
> >
> > get source
> > unpack source
> >
> > I did this 2 weeks after my very first Linux install. What took YOU so long?
> >
You're leaving out a lot of steps in the kernel compilation process here. As per
the official documentation, here are the steps for a new kernel install:
>
> > My windows installs went like this:
> >
> > 1. Realize you don't have a dos disk that will talk to your cd rom
It's common sense (I would think) that if you're working from dos you're going to
need the dos drivers.
>
> > 2. Get one from a friend (note that if you don't have any friends, you cannot
> > install windows.)
A better strategy would be to get the drivers from your own computer. If you're
using your CD-ROM, it probably means it has the drivers on it.
>
> > 3. re-write your config.sys and autoexec.bat files because your friend has a
> > different computer (if you don't remember dos or never knew, you cannot install
> > windows.)
Unneccessary step.
>
> > 4. Once the CD can be accessed, type setup at the prompt. Pray that it does
> > not crash.
Crashing on setup? Please....
>
> > 5. Answer all questions, pray that it does not crash (if it does, try again
> > and hope that it does not crash)
The total # of questions asked in the process is 2: Where do you want it and what
do you want with it.
>
> > 6. ooo I forgot. Hope that you have the CD key (without this you cannot
> > install windows.)
If you've got the CD, it's right on the jewel case. And if you're pirating, at
least have the courtesy to pirate from an original CD. The CD key is the price you
pay for having a product that someone actually has a financial stake in. Maybe I'm
just not an open source kinda guy, but I'm instantly suspicious of the quality of a
product if the people releasing it think it's worth nothing.
>
> > 7. reboot (again, pray that it does not crash.. this one happened to me twice
> > in a row on a single 98 full install on a clean hard drive.)
>
> > 8. If you crashed, do it again.
> >
> > My first linux install went like this:
> > 1. Place CD in drive, turn on.
That works fine as long as your CD-ROM drive is recognized. Unfortunately, that's a
rather large "if". Mine wasn't.
>
> > 2. Answer questions concerning partitioning (at least it asked me!!!); follow
> > recommendations in the manual (if no manual, go with one big partition)
One big partiton isn't even an option (at least not in Red Hat). And a swap
partition is always a good idea anyway.
>
> > 3. answer question concerning MY computer.. not the one windows assumes I
> > have
Windows, as I said, last time I checked, only asked where you wanted the install to
go. (I'll admit that's 95, though. 98 might have different behavior.)
>
> > 4. select everything install (for redhat anyway)
This can get you into trouble. RH makes assumptions about what you do and don't
want on your computer.
>
> > 5. reboot when it sez to
> >
Ok. Now for the steps you forgot:
1) Find out if your CMOS supports bootable CD-ROMs.
2) Reboot several times wondering why your CMOS says it supports it, but it's not
happening.
3) Copy your CD onto your hard drive.
4) Run fips to shrink the partition your install files are on so that you can
install Linux.
5) Defragment your drive so that fips can work.
6) Resize the partition.
7) Run rawrite using boot image so that you can boot from a floppy.
8) Boot with the floppy.
9) Answer the questions initially put to you.
10) Run Disk Druid. Create the new partitions. Wait for the new partitions to be
checked and formatted.
11) Pick the packages you want installed.
12) Let Xconfigure run.
13) Decide if you want Xconfigurator to probe for a card.
13a) If you let Xconfigurator probe for a card, pray it doesn't hang.
13b) If you choose not to let Xconfigurator probe for a card, I hope you have your
memory and chipset information handy.
14) Accept the default settings. Hope that your display is ok from the default.
14a) If not, repeat steps 12 -14.
14b) If everything's ok, reboot.
And that was my install experience. Actually, it was a little rougher than that,
since I had WinNT still on a partition, and I had to delete and then recreate my
swapfile so fips could work.
>
> > There ya go. My first install of windows was MUCH more problematic than my
> > first install of linux. Why? The CDs are usually bootable, and they don't crash
> > during install. I don't understand why so many ppl claim to have so many
> > problems installing linux.
>
*If* your CD is bootable, you probably have fewer problems. But that depends on
your BIOS. Not having a bootable floppy (and not having CD-ROM drivers on that
floppy) makes things considerably more dicey for anyone doing an install.
>
> I can relate to that. Prior to running Linux, I was running Windows
> 95. I had a 100 meg IDE drive on C: and a 1 gig SCSI drive on D:.
> Windows 95 took to installing itself on D: and then constantly
> complained about lacking diskspace.
>
I think you meant C:. Your D: drive sounds like it had plenty of space for
Windows. And Linux suffers from the same kind of problem. You need to have at
least part of Linux on C: so that you can boot into it with lilo. Yes, you can
spread it out more than you can spread out Windows, but a significant part of it
needs to be on the boot drive.
>
> Linux installed on drive D: without problems. I had problems trying to
> get certain programs to run because of missing libraries, etc. But,
> Linux is stable. I do not have to reboot my machine 10 times a day to
> get my hard drive space back or to make a connection with my internet
> provider.
>
Ok, I'm curious: How did you get Linux installed and bootable from a drive that's
not your boot drive? My understanding was it wouldn't be bootable unless you had
part of it on your boot drive.
>
> I would have to do a fresh install every month. It would take two or
> thre attempts before it finally installed without hitch. And then I
> would have to reinstall all of my Windows 95 programs. I would lose a
> whole day or two of work. Then I would lose all of my long filenames.
> It would work fine for about two weeks. Then all of my programs would
> start speaking Chinese. Every program I would try to install would
> install in Chinese. My printer would print Chinese.
>
I've heard horror stories like this, and I can't help thinking there's just a little
bit of hyperbole involved. First of all, I've talked to many people who never have
a problem Win 98. And I do mean *never*. I had some problems with 95, and that's
why I dumped it, but I've heard (even from the Linux guru who convinced me to
install Linux on my machine) that 98 is relatively stable. As far as doing a
complete reinstall, I only did a *complete* reinstall once or twice in 95. Most of
the time, the fixes I did were more along the lines of installing 95 over itself to
fix something that broke.
>
> I would experiment with different backed up registry versions. My ppp
> would stop working for no reason, and I would need to reinstall all of
> my networking files. I eventually found out that if shut down my
> machine, booted into Windows 95 and then did a warm reboot then I could
> log in.
>
Quite honestly, it sounds like your problem is with more than Windows. I would say
your programs and printer speaking "Chinese" is not something that should happen, no
matter what happens to the OS.
>
> I got smart. I sold my copy of Windows 95. I dumped my internet
> provider (World123). You can only connect with a Windows 95 or NT
> machine. Now I run Netscape 6 with 8 search windows open at a time, and
> my netscape crashes once or twice a day. Much better than having to
> reboot 10-15 times a day.
>
Netscape crashing once or twice a day is still a little much, don't you think?
(Although I have noticed a problem with Netscape for Linux and certain pages. In
Windows, I would simply get an error if a page wasn't coded right. In Linux, if
Netscape comes across a page it doesn't like, it just shuts down.)
>
> Windows 98 is supposed to fix all the bugs that Windows 95 had. Why
> even bother? I run regular Windows when I need to do something that
> Linux can't do. Oh yea, my credit card processing software refused to
> install in Windows 95. I had to get a special version for Windows 3.1.
>
I didn't bother with 98. I did most of my work in NT (and still plan to, until
I get my printer working or I get a new printer.) 98 is just a ploy to get more
money out of people and integrate more tightly with the Internet.
>
> Microsoft sucks plain and simple. Their buggy software is extremely
> overpriced. Linux is much more stable and cheaper :) than Microsoft
> will ever be.
>
The only qualm I have with Linux apps in general is that they are sometimes
difficult to install. As far as the pricing goes, you can't beat it, but you suffer
in terms of support, because the people writing the programs have nothing at stake
if you can't get it to work. I think what needs to happen is the big companies need
to release low-cost versions of their software for Linux. That way there's a big
support system with some stake in actually pleasing the customer.
>
> --
> Ed Power
> Proprietor
> Computer Headaches
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~powercomputersystems
> Web: http://www.ComputerHeadaches.com
------------------------------
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, 26 Jun 1999 03:48:32 -0400
Alex Lam wrote:
> Brian Hartman wrote:
> >
> > "Martin A. Boegelund" wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7imhtp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Roberto Leibman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Daniele,
> > > > Are you more familiar with Linux or Windows? I've been working with
> > > Windows
> > > > for many years now and have installed it in many strange hardware,
> > > it's just
> > > > a matter of knowing what its tricks are, as I'm sure its true of
> > > linux and
> > > > any os. If you have access to another computer, I suggest you get the
> > > latest
> > > > drivers for your laptop directly from compaq BEFORE you install
> > > anything
> > > > else, so that you have them ready when required, remember that
> > > manufacturers
> > > > seem to put a lot more custom stuff on their laptops than on other
> > > > computers, and that NO OS testing team can test every possible
> > > combination.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He _had_ trouble installing Windows, no doubt about that. He uses this
> > > experience to show that a common reason for choosing Windows over other
> > > OSs because of easy installation, does not hold in the real world.
> > >
> > > And now you tell him to get drivers for this and that over the net?!?
> > > Well, one often heard reason for _not_ liking Linux, is that you might
> > > have to get special patches and other software for your specific
> > > hardware-configuration over the net. This argument is often used by MS-
> > > advocates...
> > >
> > > I'd say you just proved his point!
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > Roberto Leibman
> > > > Talaria Research, Inc.
> > > > http://www.talaria.com
> > > > Cxi tioj opinioj ne necese estas la opinioj de la administrantaro
> > >
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------
> > > Mr Sparkle - Aka Martin A. Boegelund
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >
> > Working with Linux is *much* more difficult than working with Windows for
> > an install. For one thing, Windows plug and play (while it's hardly
> > stellar) is much further along than Linux, so you don't have to manually
> > configure as much hardware. Secondly, in a Windows environment, you don't
> > have to worry about mounting and unmounting. Your drives are just
> > there. Thirdly, hardware support for Linux is way behind that for
> > Windows. Couple this with the fact that people buy hardware thinking
> > 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.
>
> Excuse me...
>
> Windoze easy to install?
>
> Heck. I've been using Windoze since 3.0, then NT since 3.5, and Linux
> since kernel 1.x. Yes, Linux WAS difficult to install. But now, with all
> the advanced installers from some distributions, installation is a snap.
>
Installation might be a snap from some distributions, but not from what I've
seen. And it's hardly as straightforward as Windows.
>
> It took me all but 35 or 40 minutes to do a full installation with
> SuSELinux, with all the basic services all configured and running
> properly, and connected to the net with xDSL.
>
> Shitzzzzz. Windoze takes almost that much time on the zillions reboots
> it needs, plus you need to say your prays with the "plug 'n' pray"
> craps.
>
Windows only needs 2 or three reboots for the whole process (about the same as
Linux). As far as plug and play, it's more advanced than Linux's and
recognizes more devices more easily.
>
> And the only real multi-tasking Windoze can do is to boot and crash at
> the same time.
>
I won't argue there.
>
> And Dr. Watson from NT. What a joke! It just keep sending you through
> a loop without really identifying the problem. And the Help file from
> Win 98 - keep telling you the same thing, and going round and round in
> circle, then, tell you to call your system admin. Do you call that help?
> What if that poor soul is a home user?
>
> At least, the error message from Linux does clearly identify the
> problem, yes, you need to know how to interpute the message, but at
> least it gives you a precise diagnosis, and you can actually take this
> message and ask someone who knows how to interpute it to solve the
> problem, like posting on usenet.
>
I'll agree with you on the Windows help, but the Linux help is much more
cryptic. At least with the Windows help, you know when it's not the answer
you're looking for. You spend most of your time diagnosing an error message
with Linux (if you can even find where to get it).
>
> Or you can call M$ support and they keep you on hold for an hour or so
> while your long distance phone bill is ticking, and still not getting
> your problem resolved.
>
> Just my $0.000000002 from a long time M$ user, now almost completed his
> system migration to Linux.
> Alex Lam.
>
> --
> *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
> 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.
> **************************************************
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
