Linux-Hardware Digest #643, Volume #14 Wed, 18 Apr 01 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Via82c driver for sound ("Richard A. Bilonick")
Re: Recommendation for Cheap Soundcard for RH 7.0 ("Richard A. Bilonick")
Re: recovering BIOS Flash (Eric P. McCoy)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Can't boot off CD (SuSE 7.0) (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Spooky partition behaviour (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: A Linux emulator for Linux, does this exist? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: PHP and passwd change (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linux modems (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: need good linux athalon (tbird) motherboard.. ("Dave")
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Franek)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Franek)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Brent R)
Alcatel SpeedTouch HOME: Program for another ISP? (Dan Smith)
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Brent R)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard A. Bilonick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Via82c driver for sound
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:32:36 GMT
Thanks guys. I'll try it.
Rick Bilonick
Peter Christy wrote:
> Tha ALSA drivers work well - I'm using the 0.9.0beta3 drivers very
> successfully. There is a good guide to installing these on
> www.linuxnewbie.org
>
> --
> Pete
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Rick Bilonick - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Richard A. Bilonick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Recommendation for Cheap Soundcard for RH 7.0
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:34:13 GMT
Tom,
Thanks for the info. The consensus appears to support using ALSA.
Rick Bilonick
Tom Roberts wrote:
> "Richard A. Bilonick" wrote:
> > Because I'm having problems with the on-board Via sound system, is there
> > a CHEAP sound board that would work well with Red Hat 7.0 and is easy to
> > install?
>
> I tried two $15 soundcards but could get neither of them to work with RH 7:
> ESS Solo1, Crystal CS1481 (board by Pine IIRC).
>
> I also had trouble with a $27 soundcard: Creative Labs Ensoniq AudioPCI --
> playback was fine, but it introduced a noisy crackle into recordings. I
> persevered and installed the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA), and
> it now works very well.
>
> http://www.alsa-project.org
>
> Hint: the standard media player and the play command both introduce CLICKS
> between files; the alsaplayer does not. I get no such clicks in the file when
> recording using "rec".
>
> This is not audiophile quality, but it is at least as good my $300 bookshelf
> system (in an A/B comparison between CD and MP3 I cannot reliably tell the
> difference).
>
> Tom Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Rick Bilonick - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: recovering BIOS Flash
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric P. McCoy)
Date: 18 Apr 2001 01:35:02 -0400
"V.P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I make a mistake , when i flashing my bios with wrong bios upgrade.
Contact your motherboard manufacturer.
This is not a Linux issue, even remotely.
--
Eric McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:40:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> > Chant can also be okay as background, as long as it's
> > in a language I don't know. Someday when I learn Latin,
> > I probably won't be able to play chants as background
> > anymore.
>
> Chant? No, I had enough of that in music appreac eons ago.
> It's interesting for about an hour (per lifetime) and than
> it's zzz's.
I didn't say it was interesting, just that I don't find
it distracting. I don't listen to it often; baroque is
what I really like.
> > What I want is a static IP so I can telnet into my
> > home system from work (or, for that matter, from
> > wherever)... but I'm not sure I want to pay for
> > that just yet.
>
> My IP address is relatively static. THough I wouldn't open
> anything to the outside.
That's the other thing. Just for hack value and geek
points, I'd kinda like to run my own low-end mail and
web server. The bandwidth of a dialup connection would
actually be enough for the kind of traffic I'd have,
at least for now, but DHCP and dropped connections
rather put a damper on my desire to run my own server.
> When I was traveling a lot I used
> to have to grab files from my (work) desktop system when
> things didn't go right. After getting through the firewall
> I was fine. Now I simply carry my system with me. ;-)
The files at work, I don't need them at home. It's
more often that at work I'd like to have something
that's sitting on my PC at home. Which is a pain,
because the computers at work have static IPs, but
my PC at home does not.
> > My PII/233 is fast enough and will continue to be fast
> > enough for a couple of years yet.
>
> I've thrown away PII/333s. I have one sitting on my shelf
> not two feet from me. PII/233? Gack! I wouldn't touch
> one!
What you do is more processor-intensive than what I do,
that's becomming obvious.
> > But I had to buy more
> > RAM and a second hard drive and am going to be getting
>
> More RAM? That's a no brinaer at today's prices!
Yes, well, the prices weren't quite so low when I
broke down and bought it, although they had come down
some from when I got the PC originally.
> > The other thing is, Duron is a cheaper option than
> > almost anything new, except K6-2, and K6-2 just won't
> > have the performance in two or three more years; I
> > want my PC to last longer than that, if nothing else
> > because migrating a multiboot system to new hardware
> > is a serious pain.
>
> Only WinBlows. ;-)
Yes, migrating Windoze is the worst part. Basically,
it involves reinstalling everything from scratch and
then copying over the data and strategic parts of the
registry. Significant pain is involved. If the
hardware is very different there are some issues
with Linux as well, although a complete reinstall
shouldn't be necessary unless the architecture is
changing or something. The easiest is the BeOS; it
can go to sleep on the old system and wake up on
the new system as if nothing unusual had happened.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can't boot off CD (SuSE 7.0)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:40:05 GMT
hac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't *want* to run RH 7.0, due to the unofficial compiler version,
> and general history of ".0" releases. Am I the only one who would
> prefer a 6.3?
Heh. In the days before I discovered free software, I used
to hold myself to the rule: "Never buy anything point zero".
But I suppose for the OS, that rule might be of value even
if you aren't paying for the software, because everything
relies on it. With apps, I tend to go ahead and get .0
versions if I'm not paying much for them, on the theory
that at worst I can go back to what I was using before.
But with the OS that could be a pain.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Spooky partition behaviour
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:40:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon) wrote:
> So I wiped out the old filesystems and repartitioned it to:
> 1: Primary. Win32 1Gb
> 2: Extended (for the remainder)
> 3: Logical (Win32, 1Gb)
> 4: Logical (Linux swap 128Mb)
> 5: Logical (Linux ext2)
> 6: Logical (Linux ext2)
> 7: Logical (Linux ext2)
> 8: Logical (Linux ext2)
Windows freaks out when there are non-FAT logical partitions.
fdisk going bonkers is what happens if you're *lucky*. If
you're not lucky, Windows will want to format your non-FAT
partitions when you open MyComputer. Also, your CD-ROM
drive may not work in Windows. Those are just the symptoms
I've seen that magically appeared when I added a non-FAT
logical and disappeared when I removed it or changed it
to a FAT fs. I suspect there may be other potential
fallout as well. It boils down to this: Windows is
not prepared to see anything inside an extended partition
except logical drives with FAT fs on them. Put anything
else in there, and Windoze may not be happy.
> So, my Linux 'fdisk' and Win98 'fdisk' are reporting
> *completely* different things. How the hell did that
> happen and how do I fix it?
The Linux version of fdisk is doubtless correct. What
you're seeing is mild. I've seen FDISK (in Windoze) show
partitions with the wrong sizes, show partitions out of
order, show partitions on the wrong drive, show them with
drive letters that are different from the ones they're
actually assigned and volume labels duplicated from other
partitions, report greater than 100% drive usage, and all
*sorts* of weirdness. Changing a non-FAT logical to either
be FAT or primary solved these problems for me. Meanwhile,
do NOT use Windoze fdisk to make any changes. If you
need to make partition changes, use Linux. Making changes
with Windoze fdisk will result in undefined behavior. I
*suspect* that using Windows fdisk just to display its idea
of the partition table is probably safe, provided you take
what it says cum grano salis, but if I turn out to be wrong
about that I won't be deeply surprised.
It doesn't matter what kind of filesystem is on the
non-FAT logical, either; if it isn't some kind of FAT,
Windoze doesn't like it. I've seen this with Linux swap,
Linux native (ext2), and BeOS (BFS).
Sorry I don't have solutions for you. You could try
complaining to Microsoft and see how far it gets you.
They'll probably say Linux is your problem. I put
all my Linux filesystems on primary partitions and
bought enough RAM that I don't need a swap partition
(although I do keep a swap _file_ around, just in
case), and Windoze is much happier. Another
possibility is to decide you don't want Windoze, or
you could use Windoze but carefully avoid its fdisk
and use TweakUI to tell MyComputer not to display
the drives that it maps to the Linux logicals. (A
strategically placed SUBST command or two in a BAT
file that runs out of the Startup folder can also
be useful.) None of these is ideal, but ideal
would be if M$ would debug Windoze in a multiboot
environment, and that's not going to happen this week.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: A Linux emulator for Linux, does this exist?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:40:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards) wrote:
> Replacing two PCs with a 390 may not be feasible. It would be
> interesting to see an analysis of where the break-even point
> is. 50 PC's? 1000 PD's?
How much does a 390 cost?
The OP was hoping to escape the cost of a second PC,
so clearly this solution won't fit his budget.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: PHP and passwd change
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:40:07 GMT
"Colin G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, this is a web-mail client similar to Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, and others.
> I'd prefer to have some layer to seperation there. The clients just see the
> web interface, and don't need to worry about SSH, telnet, or any other
> layers.
There exist Java-based implementations of ssh clients; in particular,
webmin uses a Java-based client to ssh into the target host. The
browser doesn't need to know that the Java it's running is doing
an ssh session. Now, webmin does this and presents a shell face
to the user, but you could alter the I/O and bury the ssh inside
the Java code and just present the user with the standard "Type
your old password; type your new password; retype your new
password" interface. The bummer here is that this introduces
Java into the picture, and everything that goes with it. Of
course, you could implement roughly the same thing in CGI, using
Perl or C or whatever language you like, running as a user who
is privileged to plug into sockets on remote machines (which
you've got to be able to do to get mail from remote machines
anyway, right?). Is there a Perl ssh client? If not, there's
almost certainly C code floating around on the net that will
do ssh and could be merged into your project.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Linux modems
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:40:08 GMT
William Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a linux newbie and I would like to know if anyone can recommend a modem
> that works with linux. I have a a system with Win95 and Mandrake 6.1.
> Everything works fine in my system but the modem. A million thanks.
Get a modem with hardware flow control. Any external serial modem
will work (assuming you have an available serial port), and there
are internal modems that will work also; make sure you get one
with hardware flow control. Do not select a "controllerless" modem.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:46:43 +1200
<snype>
> I do things which truly astound and bill for it.
Admin NT servers, the most astound things? my guess, getting them to
stay up for longer than one week whilst maintaining the same throughput.
Answer the question sonny. Until you start admining s/900z, s/390, and
clusters of UNIX servers, I suggest that you should keep your trap shut.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: need good linux athalon (tbird) motherboard..
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:54:29 -0700
Do you know anything about the Asus A7V133? All I know is that it adds
266MHz FSB capability. Is it just as Linux compatible? or could there be
problems since the A7V133 is newer than the A7V?
"Giles C Hjort-Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I use an Asus A7V and it works great. You will need to use a 2.4.x
> kernel for support of the onboard promise controller, if you use an older
> kernel you can still run linux fine from a hard disk on the standard VIA
> ATA/66 controller.
>
> In article <xB5D6.111364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "teknogeek"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > i'm looking to upgrade my processor/mb, and am planning on getting an
> > amd thunderbird processor. are there any recommendations for good
> > inexpensive motherboards which work excellent under linux?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:40:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric P. McCoy) wrote:
> > Go find 'em, they're cheap secondhand, and often in near mint condition.
>
> Mine was something insane like $60 new. Worth every penny.
They sound like they're worth $60, but if I'm going to spend that
I might as well spend $200 and get one that's also programmable,
because I hate having the keys like Ctrl and Alt and Shift (which
get pressed at least twice as often as any letter) where I have
to hit them with my pinky. I'm going for an Avant keyboard and
creating my own custom layout. The only thing I'm going to miss
badly is having a two-piece keyboard (like my current one), but
it's well worth losing that to get full programmability.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: Franek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:18:32 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
> Man..that ladder logic is the wierdest way to program I've ever seen.
Not to an electrician, though. Your thinking inside the box. Consider historical
circumstances, and realize that factories exist for a long time, and they were not
quite
un-automated before the advent of PLCs. Computerization and automation aren't one and
the
same thing.
------------------------------
From: Franek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:19:28 GMT
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> maybe the problem was with the application, but didn't it take nt down with
> it?
I wasn't there at the moment <g>.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:31:25 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Jean-David Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
> > controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
> > in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
> > port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
> > much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
> > bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
> > is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
> > would not some private industry be just as dumb?
>
> Why let the facts get in the way of a good dis, right? Your lack of
> knowledge on the issue doesn't seem to prevent you from jumping to
> conclusions.
>
> The facts in the matter are a) that it wasn't a battleship, and b) that they
> were running a beta version of the control software which did not validate
> entry fields. As such, when an operator entered a 0 into a field, it was
> stored in the database, causing all subsystems that depended on that
> information to fail with a divide by zero exception.
>
> The application could not be restarted because every time they restarted it,
> it would re-read the data values and crash again, thus the ship was dead in
> the water. Further, the ship wasn't towed in, the ship had alternate
> propulsion mechanisms onboard because it was an experimental project running
> beta software.
>
> The Navy and the canadian company that wrote the software stated that the
> problem was not related to NT in any way. In fact, the canadian contractor
> laid the blame on the Navy for not installing their validated version before
> the incident, which would have prevented the problem from ever occuring.
>
> The navy, however, believed that they should shake out the vessel and see
> where the potential failures might be so that in real emergency situations,
> they would know how to respond.
Still, I think their point was that a single application brought the
entire show down... a situation that's critical when it really matters
(which admittedly it usually doesn't).
I've been an MS defender in here... still I would never use NT to do
something like that... that's just not what it's made for. UNIX is more
apptly suited in that role.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Dan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Alcatel SpeedTouch HOME: Program for another ISP?
Date: 17 Apr 2001 18:25:28 -0400
I have 2 Alcatel SpeedTouch Home DSL modems. One is configured for my
ISP, one is not. They tell me that a modem has to be config'd for
their service, and that I can't use just any modem. Does anyone know
how I can suck the configuration out of the good one and stuff it into
the other one?
This would really help me out. Thanks!
--Dan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:40:10 GMT
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:43:34 -0400, JS PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> JS PL wrote:
|> >
|> > "David Ehrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> > news:aFHC6.18762$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> > > "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> > > ...
|> > > > That looks pretty proportional to their claim of 32,000 worldwide!
|> > >
|> > > Microsoft partners include companies who have several MS-certified
|> > > (MCSE, MCP, MSD) employees on staff, or who at one point were
|interested
|> > > in riding the Microsoft wave. I am one of the many former "paper"
|> > > partners that MS had at one point. The advantages to these programs
|were
|> > > minimal, aside from the legitimacy that certification confers on
|> > > individual technicians. For instance, we had to pay distributor prices
|> > > 5-10x higher than Compaq, Dell, and Gateway for product, were
|> > > continually beat up by educational "partners" who were selling product
|> > > illegally at academic discount prices, and as a company outside an
|urban
|> > > hub, were routinely passed over (in referrals) in favor of preferred
|> > > partners in major cities, in some cases in other states. It was a big
|> > > disappointment. I know others who bailed out of various MS programs.
|> > >
|> > > I don't care if Microsoft can prove they have 500,000,000 partners.
|> > > Their allegiances lie with companies in their size and weight class,
|not
|> > > small consulting or integration outfits.
|> >
|> > So before we get away from the assinine Linvocate statement that "there
|is
|> > ONE word for a Microsoft Business partner, extinct"
|> > Since you actually are or "were" classified as a Microsoft Business
|Partner,
|> > I can safely assume that your now "extinct" like the other 32,000 that
|he
|> > claims are now extinct, since all business partners of Microsoft are
|> > supposedly EXTINCT? Or could it be that there are really NO business
|> > partners who are extinct, or such a small percentage that it mirrors the
|> > natural rate of extinction?
|> >
|> > You see, it's these stupid assed statements that will be the death of
|Linux.
|> > Normally when someone is choosing between two people to do business
|with,
|> > they WON'T choose the guy that's bad mouthing and making proposterous
|> > statements against the competitor. Statements like, "there's one word
|> > for......." show nothing but immaturity and poor judgement. Not good
|> > qualities.
|> Just out of general curiousity, what is your occupation and what company
|> do you work for?
|
|I do things which truly astound and bill for it.
You contract out as a stage magician?
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:46:56 GMT
Franek wrote:
>
> Charles Lyttle wrote:
> > However there are a number of manufacturers who make PC equals for the
> > factory floor. They are much lower cost than traditional factory
> > hardware, especially HP or Sun systems. These systems cost lots more
> > than CompUSA trash, but still are cost effective, *IF* they have a good
> > OS loaded. Linux does have competitors in this market, QNX being one.
> > But the cost of a single BSOD is high enough to keep Windows out.
> er... I've done some work on the "factory floor" and I've used different operating
> systems. First (I'll probably be crucified now) linux crashes just as well as NT,
> especially with some of the crap that's out there (of course it doesn't show blue on
> screen <g>, maybe that makes it preferable.) Second, NT is used an *awful* lot in the
> factory environment, and again, it's not that bad, no Sir, not at all. Lastly,
>whatever
> application you're running that *must* not abend, you won't run either on NT or
>linux, or
> anything else of the kind. For critical real-time control none of these will do. QNX
>will
> do, as will some specialized systems like DCSs or PLCs. General-purpose boxes
>normally run
> user interfaces, data collection, recipe loading, this kind of things, not the RT
>control.
> This stuff can be rebooted relatively harmlessly.
>
> The problems with NT have rather something to do with:
> - cost of licensing and idiotic conditions with artificial limitations
> - goddamned size of it (linux can be chopped up and configured *exactly* for that
>task you
> need)
> - related to the previous: a potentially higher cost of hardware--sometimes it's
> important.
>
> > --
> > Russ Lyttle
> > "World Domination through Penguin Power"
> > The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
> > <http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Hmmm... if you read my other posts and you'll see that I am in no way a
MS-basher... usually I'm bashing some of the Linux kooks in here... but
I have never had Linux even come close to crashing. I love pressing the
CAPS key and watch the light actually go on and off without failure
(something I could not do in in Windows98). The problems I've had with
Linux have all been related to X, the GUI locks up and I press
CTL-ALT-BCKSPCE and take down the GUI. So needless to say the really
important stuff in Linux I do on an alternate text-login.
I've had problems with NT, not nearly as bad as Windows 98 but with more
problems then Linux. I personally can't tell if it's due to bad
administration or what... it also has to do with a misbehaving app
locking up the system (and the three fingered salute doesn't bring up
the NT process screen right away). NT is also a huge resource hog...
Linux is more compact with comparable (probably better) stability and
endurance.
I would suggest that the only reason why NT is making inroads is that
company's are making apps for it... and phasing out UNIX. Look, NT is a
proprietary system just like the commercial UNICES that these companies
used beforehand (I'm assuming), but those products had competitors while
MS has none.
I've never heard of QNX (please divulge). I would wonder if some of
these companies use IBM mainframes? I would probably bypass PC's
altogether and go with a WS or mainframe. Let's face it... PC's are fast
but they're pieces of junk. No one makes a PC that's designed to put up
with the punishment that would be dealt to it on a factory floor. I've
used an IBM mainframe (ES/9000, VSE/ESA) for about 1.5 years now, and
I've seen how much more robust they are and how much PC's suck.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.hardware.
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
******************************
