Linux-Hardware Digest #603, Volume #10 Sun, 27 Jun 99 00:13:32 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Re: Looking for vendor for a Linux box ("T.J. Weber")
Re: ISDN (Michael Wilson)
Re: Looking for vendor for a Linux box (Jerome Jahnke)
Re: PCI Modem (Frank Hahn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[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 19:54:55 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> DarkProphet wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> Well, on my particular system, the jury's still out as to whether or not it can be
> done. I haven't actually gotten it to work. If you could offer any assistance, I'd
> appreciate it. :)
>
> >
> > > >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
> >
>
> I got my instructions for compiling my kernel from two sources. First, there's the
> redhat howto page for the kernel. Then, there's
> www.thecomputergallery.com/redhat/kernel.shtml Neither of these sources mentioned
> make xconfig. "Make menuconfig" sounds a lot like what you're talking about, but
>that
> step is somewhat down the road in the configuration process. And it's not hard as in
> "compile your own custom version of Netscape" hard. It's hard as in there are
> numerous steps, any of which will screw you if you neglect them. Make menuconfig
> probably takes the most attentive time, since neglecting to install a needed option
> necessitates you doing the whole thing over. You must have a pretty fast computer,
> too. :) I'm on a Pentium 166 (not all that slow, considering kernel 2.2 is supposed
> to be able to run on a 386) and "make install" alone took about a half an hour to
> finish.
>
> >
> > > 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).
>
> This might be one of the things that Linux distributions suffer from: Users download
> their copies, thereby foregoing the manual if they don't look at the howto pages
> (which are kind of difficult to look at if you don't have Linux installed enough to
> have PPP).
>
> >
> > 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)
>
> While skipping the install manual might not be a good idea, the fact is that you
> *can* do it with Windows, while you'll have a much harder time of it with Linux.
> Obviously, this is a trade-off between customization and ease-of-use. But it's not a
> bad trade-off for novice users. (And I think I need to specify *Linux* novice users,
> not necessarily just computer novices).
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I agree with you there. I was willing to put up with a little confusion because
> I knew I would get a better system out of it in the end. However, a user who doesn't
> have a lot of high-intensity tasks would not have the same motivation.
>
> Just as an aside, I've spoken to numerous users I would consider novices since my
> install of Linux. I usually cite the stability of the OS as my reason for switching
> (although a close second is the frustration with the monolith of MS apps). In each
> case, the novice user I was talking to either reported no problems or none
>significant
> enough to merit changing their OS. What I'm getting at is that for the average user,
> who doesn't really tax what their system can do, Linux might not have such a high
> return on their time investment. For my own part, my dual-boot system (between 95
>and
> NT) was complex enough that I was experiencing problems, and therefore decided to
>make
> the change.
>
> As luck would have it, there's an article in PC Magazine concerning the 2.2 kernel.
> They don't seem to be all that thrilled with it for novice users, either. Anyone who
> wants to read that part of the article (which asks the question if Linux is the
> perfect OS) should go to:
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/pctech/content/18/11/tf1811.005.html One thing in the
> article (which has been in contention throughout this thread) is that Linux's plug
>and
> play is not as far along as MS's. Another is the lack of USB support in Linux. All
> of these things are factors to an installation, and speak directly to the question of
> ease of installation and use.
>
Who cares about "plug n play?" It's more like "Plug and Pray", I
disabled it even with Windoze.
And what's the fuzz about USB? Both PnP and USB are Windozecentric
stuff.
Want to add more peripherals, I go with SCSI. Even the basic EIDE is
enough for 99% of the time.
Alex Lam.
> >
> > >
> > > 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)
> >
>
> I had the same problem with my modem. When I first installed it, it only recognized
> it as a Standard Modem. If I tried to install it as a 56K modem, it installed it,
>but
> didn't recognize it as an RAS device. Well, some time down the road my NT
> installation went belly-up, and I had to reinstall. When I did, suddenly my modem
>was
> recognized as what it was, and was on the list of RAS devices. I can't explain it.
> I'm just reporting it.
>
> >
> > --
> > #-------------------------------------------------#
> > | | | | | | ` |
> > | | | | | | ` |
> > | | | | | |~\ ` |
> > | | | | | | | |
> > | | | | | | | |
> > | | | | | / , |
> > | | | | ~ , |
> > | | | | , |
> > | | | | |~~~ |
> > | | | | | | |
> > | | | | | | | |
> > | | | | | | | |
> > #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
> > |XYPHOID TECHNOLOGIES: WHERE DID YOU GO YESTERDAY?|
> > #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: "T.J. Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: chi.general,chi.internet
Subject: Re: Looking for vendor for a Linux box
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:34:23 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dusty Rhodes wrote:
>
> I just went through the entire online order process using my persoanl
> account with a Chicago purchase and delivery address. I don't know or
> care what the State of Illinois says, but I do know Dell does NOT charge
> sales tax on shipments to Chicago. That doesn't mean they don't pay
> sales tax, but they are not passing it on if they do.
>
I know that a friend of mine ordered a Dell last December and he was
bitching because they charged him sales tax. I'm willing to bet that
they changed the laws or something.
--t.j.
--
T.J. Weber | Providing your business with COMPLETE
CEO, Interplanetary Media | computer & Internet solutions!
phone: 847.205.5200 | ----- SARRZY INTERNET SOLUTIONS -----
fax: 847.205.5201 | web: http://www.ipmedia.net
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
====================================================================
He's not dead, he's / You have the right to remain
electroencephalographically / silent. Anything you say will
challenged. / be misquoted and used against you.
====================================================================
------------------------------
From: Michael Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ISDN
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 02:51:00 +0000
John wrote:
>
> I am thinking about connection to the Internet via ISDN and was looking for
> some ISDN modems that are compatable with SuSE 6.1. Anyone got any
> suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
> Chris Mader
load up yast and look in the system admin/network base config to see
what options are available in the hardware section. I used this and
based it on the decision to buy the ELSA QuickStep 1000 PCI (Works a
treat).... You can always opt for a Teles or Sportster, word of advice
though, go for a Card as opposed to a TA (External) as ISDn4Linux does
not cooperate with Ext devices and KISDN version 0.99 is so nice to
connect as a front end for ISDN4Linux (incl channel bundling)...
Regards,.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerome Jahnke)
Crossposted-To: chi.general,chi.internet
Subject: Re: Looking for vendor for a Linux box
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:14:54 -0500
In article <m1ed3.6417$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam H. Kerman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jerome Jahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You do realize that you are supposed to pay the sales tax, in Illinois
> >there is a form on your state taxes where you itemize all the stuff you
> >bought and then pay the tax on it. The fact that people are NOT doing this
> >is what is leading the gubbiment to create a net tax.
>
> The net tax is simply greed, nothing more.
>
> You've got a few things confused. A buyer never pays sales tax. The seller
> pays it. This is an important distinction because, technically, Illinois
> has no sales tax. We have a Retailers' Occupation Tax (ROT) as sales taxes
> were unconstitutional when it was enacted. Illinois custom does allow
> retailers to itemize it on the invoice for the customer's information,
but the
> customer has no recourse if he believes the store made a rounding error which
> likely won't be made when it's time to pay the tax.
Oooohhh Kay... Check your Illinois tax forms and tell me what that tax is.
Jer,
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Hahn)
Subject: Re: PCI Modem
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 03:24:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:43:59 GMT, Bart�omiej Niechwiej
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I had a 33600 modem which worked perfectly with Linux (it was Zoltrix
>ISA modem - not a PnP modem).
>I sold it and bought Zoltrix Spirit 56K PCI PnP modem and I'm not able
>
Can you buy it back?
>to configure my Linux box to support it. When I look at /proc/pci I see
>unrecognized pci device (and I know this is my modem) using IRQ 5. When
>I try manually
>setserial /dev/ttyS2 irq 5 io 0x3e8 etc. it doesn't work (when I later
>use minicom I can't talk to the modem). What should I do? Does anybody
>know what to do with PCI PnP devices? Is any pcipnp (like isapnp)
>program which could help?
>
Try a search of http://www.deja.com about your topic. As far as I
know, no one has yet got a PCI modem to work.
--
Frank Hahn
Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking
-- H. L. Mencken
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
