The Wintrolls
Edward Rosten
software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
doesn't work under Linux?
Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
them).
Just my £0.02
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
mlw
>
> Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
> software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
> to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
>
> Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
> doesn't work under Linux?
>
> Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
> What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
> he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
>
> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> them).
I do find much of the wintrolls posts, quite frankly, very hard to believe. Not
any one incident, mind you, but that they seem to have ALL the problems ever
posted about Linux. This has always been a cause for me to ponder what it is
that they are doing.
I use my computer to work. My work consists of designing software and
procedures for others to write software. I need software development tools, and
standard office tools. Drawing, charting, presentations, etc.
I have yet to be lacking any of the tools I need to work under Linux. These
guys carry on like presentations must be done in postscript code authored in
VI. The funny thing is that I never log any time lost to random crashes, or
reboots to "fix" a problem. Which is funny too because Microsoft has been
working so hard to make the boot process "quicker" so people don't lose as much
time, but the reality it could take longer if they would work on making Windows
more stable.
Ralph Miguel Hansen
> Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
> software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
> to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
>
> Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
> doesn't work under Linux?
>
>
> Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
> What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
> he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
>
>
> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> them).
>
> Just my £0.02
>
> -Ed
>
I don't believe that these "wintrolls" do realize that for sure each
pro-linux-guy in this group has made his funny to bitter experiences with
M$-Systems ? Ever got a crash in Excel when trying to save a file and lost
all data ? Ever wrote a 400-pages document and Word 97 didn't agree with
your layout ? I know, Excel and Word are applications and not the OS, but
they are as unreliable as W3.1*/95/98/ME.
Mostly the trolls are amateurs in computing -nothing bad, I am too-, got
problems with configuring such easy stuff like mandrake, trying to open a
130MB textfile with the wrong editor, complain about fonts and buy hardware
like winmodems which sometimes won't run with Linux. If you put Diesel in
the wrong car, who is the idiot ?
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 5.3 and SuSE 7.0
Lloyd Llewellyn
> operating system.
They all said I was mad.
Nils Zonneveld
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> them).
>
> Just my £0.02
>
> -Ed
You'll have to admit that without our much appreciated Wintrolls, this
NG would be utterly boring. Besides that they have a point, not
confirming to the Windoze world is not making your live any easier. I
use a Mac, connected to my trustworthy Linux server and I've used my
electronic banking software on my Mac for years now. Last month though,
I discovered that my Mac client is no longer supported by my bank. Since
we are making the transition from Guilders to Euro's within a year, the
bank has decided to stop support for all programs that don't support the
Euro. They are refusing to make any other clients then windows clients,
because "the other market segments are too small". Unless I switch to
windows I'll be not able to continue electronic banking. I have
informed with other banks wether they support the Mac OS, or *NIX
platform, nada, zilch nothing, all M$ only. The wintrolls do have a
point here: M$ still has a monopoly.
Just my € 0,02
Nils
--
"Misschien is niets geheel waar, en zelfs dat niet"
Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker) - Idee 1
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
> > software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
> > to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
> >
> > Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
> > doesn't work under Linux?
> >
> > Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
> > What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
> > he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
> >
> > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> > seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> > yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> > something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> > them).
>
> I do find much of the wintrolls posts, quite frankly, very hard to believe. Not
> any one incident, mind you, but that they seem to have ALL the problems ever
> posted about Linux. This has always been a cause for me to ponder what it is
> that they are doing.
Especially problems that were solved 6 and 7 years ago...
>
> I use my computer to work. My work consists of designing software and
> procedures for others to write software. I need software development tools, and
> standard office tools. Drawing, charting, presentations, etc.
>
> I have yet to be lacking any of the tools I need to work under Linux. These
> guys carry on like presentations must be done in postscript code authored in
> VI. The funny thing is that I never log any time lost to random crashes, or
> reboots to "fix" a problem. Which is funny too because Microsoft has been
> working so hard to make the boot process "quicker" so people don't lose as much
> time, but the reality it could take longer if they would work on making Windows
> more stable.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Tom Wilson
<flatfi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:qoot7tktqgvr9jb4v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:29:12 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig>
> wrote:
>
> >Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
> >software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
> >to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
>
> Two of the four came as freebies with hardware I bought and the other
> two were OEM's I picked up at computer shows for $5.00 or so.
> Lexmark is great for free software.
Kids, from what I've seen, truely are software magnets. A friend of mine
with 14 and 17 year-olds are waist-deep in the stuff.
>
> >Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
> >doesn't work under Linux?
>
> You don't even have to buy it, just read the box haven't seen too many
> that say supports Linux.
You're seeing more and more though. Which is quite surprising in a way. Of
course, people were confident Linux, itself, would never have appeared on
those shelves, either...
> >
> >Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
> >What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
> >he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
>
> I suggest a little reading in the Mandrake group for some interesting
> laughter.
That seems to be the only, real, problem area where Linux is concerned.
They've become a real joke as a distro maker. The 7.2 "complete" (sic)
fiasco will either wake them up or do them in. There isn't room in the
industry for two lousy OS's. Microsoft needs SOME area to monopolize in the
future...
>
> >
> >Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> >seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> >yet they keep on using it.
>
> I don't USE it I just keep it installed to try things when the
> Penguinista's make wild claims.
When the vast majority of those claims are verified by the others, it makes
the nay-sayers claims appear "wild".
>
>
> > Why? No sane person would carry on using
> >something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> >them).
>
>
> No sane person would use Linux on a home desktop system as their
> primary operating system.
Hey! I haven't heard the "voices" for years...
>
> >Just my £0.02
> >
> >-Ed
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
Pete Goodwin
> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> them).
But I don't hate Linux!
And it isn't crashing all the time!
What software is it I can't run?
As for why do I keep using it - KNode is worth the effort!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
Mart van de Wege
<ime...@remove-to-reply.freeuk.com> wrote:
Pete,
I have been following your adventures with LM 7.2 for some time, and
apart frome the abuse you heap on your poor system, I must admit that
your postings confirm to other rumours I've heard and my (admittedly
limited) experience with Mandrake.
It seems that Mandrake is so obsessed with being on the cutting edge on
one side and their market share on the other side, that they have started
shipping defective distros. This is a sure path to oblivion in my
opinion, and I would suggest you switch to another distro ASAP. That
would also bring the noise level of your postings waaay down.
Mart
Happily running Debian 2.2
Edward Rosten
flatfi...@att.net wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:29:12 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
>>software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
>>to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
>
> You obviously don't have school age children. Two of the four came as
> freebies with hardware I bought and the other two were OEM's I picked up
> at computer shows for $5.00 or so. Lexmark is great for free software.
Do you use them all? Are any of them as good as, say Britannica?
>>Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
>>doesn't work under Linux?
>
> You don't even have to buy it, just read the box haven't seen too many
> that say supports Linux.
You spend time reading software boxes?
>>Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
>>What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on
>>to he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from
>>them.
>
> I suggest a little reading in the Mandrake group for some interesting
> laughter.
Don't use Mandrake, then. Simple, really.
>>Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
>>seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they
>>want, yet they keep on using it.
>
> I don't USE it I just keep it installed to try things when the
> Penguinista's make wild claims.
So you install it and then do what if you never use it. Also, you install
it every time someone posts on cola? No wonder you're pissed off with it
:-)
>> Why? No sane person would carry on using
>>something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
>>them).
>
> No sane person would use Linux on a home desktop system as their primary
> operating system.
I have good reasons for using Linux. You have good reasons for not using
Linux. So why bother with it at all?
> Flatfish Why do they call it a flatfish? Remove the ++++ to reply.
Its flat!
Edward Rosten
> pro-linux-guy in this group has made his funny to bitter experiences
> with M$-Systems ? Ever got a crash in Excel when trying to save a file
> and lost
We've all been there...
> all data ? Ever wrote a 400-pages document and Word 97 didn't agree
> with
Ouch! 400 pages in word? You must like punishment :-)
> your layout ? I know, Excel and Word are applications and not the OS,
> but they are as unreliable as W3.1*/95/98/ME.
True.
> Mostly the trolls are amateurs in computing -nothing bad, I am too-, got
> problems with configuring such easy stuff like mandrake, trying to open
> a
> 130MB textfile with the wrong editor, complain about fonts and buy
> hardware like winmodems which sometimes won't run with Linux. If you
> put Diesel in the wrong car, who is the idiot ?
The Wintrolls seem to go out of the way to do idiotic things.
Edward Rosten
> NG would be utterly boring.
That is true. My personal favourite was Tym Parmer (Tim Palmer). That
guy was seriously funny. Aparrently he hung out on
something.usage.english (or something like that).
Edward Rosten
<ime...@remove-to-reply.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
>> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they
>> want, yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on
>> using something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was
>> forced on them).
>
> But I don't hate Linux!
Sometimes you seem to, other times you don't.
> And it isn't crashing all the time!
That's not what I heard. You were complaining about KDE crashing (and
taking Linux with it?).
> What software is it I can't run?
You keep posting things about stuff like telnet not running, but you
refuse to post useful details.
> As for why do I keep using it - KNode is worth the effort!
I'm with pan at the moment. I actually really liked Communicator 4.75's
news client, but it lacked killfiles. Eventually, the combination of
Conrad and Jan forced me to look else where for a newsreader.
Nigel
> they are as unreliable as W3.1*/95/98/ME.
>
I think its laughable the way that when a linux user mentions a bug in Word
or excel then the wintrolls say it's only an application and not the
operating system yet when they have problems with Staroffice or Netscrape
under Linux then they blame the operating system - If you don't like
Staroffice then use Koffice / Applixware office and if you don't like
netscape then use Konqueror, opera, mozilla or one of the many others (even
word / excel can run on linux under current versions of wine - like to see
windows users run koffice).
David Dorward
> Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
> software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
> to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
I have about a dozen, PC Plus seem to give one away every other month at
the moment.
> Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
> What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
> he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
I don't monitor the serious newsgroups, they aren't as much fun <g>
Nigel
> I discovered that my Mac client is no longer supported by my bank. Since
Sad that your bank now only supports the most hacked and virus riddled
operating system - try telling them you will change banks if they don't
support secure operating systems.
Charlie Ebert
>Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
>software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
>to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
>
Well, flatfish is a vast pile of shit.
Or haven't you noticed that.
>Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
>doesn't work under Linux?
>
Yeah I guess so. But it's 20:1 they tried it on Windows first
and didn't like it. So they figured running it on Linux would
make things all better.
>
>Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
>What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
>he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
>
Well first things first.
#1. These trolls are not individuals/persons representing themselves.
They are paid by Microsoft to post this crap in favor of
the company and against Linux.
Flatfish posts 20 hours a day and he's been doing that for
4 months now. Most 'humans' you know of would not do this.
They would not do this unless they had several barrels of
body parts in their back bedrooms.
Oh, and they had been masterbating on them...
>
>Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
>seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
>yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
>something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
>them).
>
>Just my £0.02
>
>-Ed
Well Pete Goodwin is just an asshole. I don't think he's paid
by anybody to do anything. I believe he just sits on his ass
collecting British Welfare. EF or Mr. Fukenbush as I call him,
he's a self proclaimed know it all, jack of all trades, kind
of self help person. Point to a rock, say "it's a rock" and
EF will immediately begin a detailed analysis of your verbal
description, draw an immediate conclusion, and brand you a
Linux asshole for life.
So there you go.
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
And here's my .02 cents worth....
Appearently Microsoft isn't very certain of their monopoly
anymore as they have flatfish in here 20 hours a day posting
linux hate mail.
And yes, they have that web site prediction, posted by Adam,
which states we will all turn to methane gas in just 6 months.
What a load of shit....
Microsoft is the monopoly alright. So why are these assholes
here anyway? What threat is Linux to them????
Maybe *EVERYBODY* should be asking this important question???
Humm????
Charlie
J Sloan
Welcome to the looney bin then!
I've been using Linux as the primary OS both at
work and at home for years now, and I've never
regretted it for a moment.
jjs
Ralph Miguel Hansen
I heard them complain about koffice. Told them that koffice-developers like
to get bug-reports; do you think they understand the way open source works ?
And then I told them nearly the same thing as you -use StarOffice, take
Applixware-, you can guess the answer ? StarOffice is a memory hog (never
seen such thing in the M$-universe?) and Applixware is not for free..... .
I really believe that sometimes playing around with tamagotchi-Win9*
damages the brains.
Ralph Miguel Hansen
>> I don't believe that these "wintrolls" do realize that for sure each
>> pro-linux-guy in this group has made his funny to bitter experiences
>> with M$-Systems ? Ever got a crash in Excel when trying to save a file
>> and lost
>
> We've all been there...
>
>> all data ? Ever wrote a 400-pages document and Word 97 didn't agree
>> with
>
> Ouch! 400 pages in word? You must like punishment :-)
>
My nephew studied history and I typed his brief history about the
german-danish border using Word 97. Fuck, shit, what a mess, I never will
do it again. Some smart people of M$ told me to save all 10 minutes, but
you know the ways Word can kill a layout. Since then I am using Linux,
doing such work with Lyx/KLyx.
Donn Miller
> > all data ? Ever wrote a 400-pages document and Word 97 didn't agree
> > with
>
> Ouch! 400 pages in word? You must like punishment :-)
I've done a 100+ page thesis with MS Word, version 2.0a, under Windows
3.1. This was back in '94. The thing was like 130 pages long, and had
tons of embedded EPS and TIFF images (for the illustrations). It also
had a ton of equations embedded in it. In all, THESIS.DOC was ~ 4.7MB
in size. I had a hell of a time printing that thing out, because the
postscript driver would always crash before I could get the entire
document printed. (You do remember the problems MS had with their
postscript driver a long time ago, in the Win 3.1 days?)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Charlie Ebert
Me too except for work.
But that will change some day.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
Peter Hayes
Can you use KNode as an offline reader without having to run leafnode or
the like?
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today because increased atmospheric pollution
means Everest is no longer visible from the survey location.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:95mgsg$hr5$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing since
sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the crash-proof
masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
> and
> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> them).
That's why I switched to FreeBSD. Almost no problems since then. The
FreeBSD port system is a breeze, and I compiling your kernel is quite a
simple task. Why compile the kernel? To optimize it for the processor of
course, along with all the utilities. Linux is optimized for a 386, though
there are some kernels compiled with various other options available, and
compiling your own kernel is quite a task.
Having said that, I like Linux. I just wish it was a little less flaky when
trying to modify it. Examples:
Upgrading RPM 3 to 4 caused the package database to need to be converted,
however no matter what I tried, even following the directions it gave, it
never could convert the database. This left me in a state where I could no
longer install any new software unless i did it from tarball, not even from
the CD. I couldn't even reinstall RPM 3. This is what led me to wipe the
disk and install FreeBSD.
I had serious problems with my video adapter using XFree86 4.0.1, and it's a
supported card. Yet 4.0.1 worked fine under FreeBSD.
I had problems with using two identical PCI network cards (3c905b's) in the
same box. Turns out, you need to specially configure the network driver for
this scenario, since it can't figure out how to autoconfigure identical
cards together.
Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default. It took a lot
of dinking around to figure out how to enable it, and what settings to use.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3A803435...@pobox.com...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
> > news:95mgsg$hr5$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
> >
> > I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing since
> > sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the crash-proof
> > masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
>
> claim that, as a Unix variant, Linux is more reliable than
> the microsoft family of products.
I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others state
quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so numerous
times.
> > That's why I switched to FreeBSD. Almost no problems since then. The
> > FreeBSD port system is a breeze, and I compiling your kernel is quite a
> > simple task. Why compile the kernel? To optimize it for the processor
of
> > course, along with all the utilities. Linux is optimized for a 386,
though
> > there are some kernels compiled with various other options available,
and
> > compiling your own kernel is quite a task.
>
> There is no basis in fact for this statement - in fact, it's a lot
> more likely that it's optimized for xeon, or dec alpha.
Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386. That
means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps install
a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
still be a generic one.
> > Having said that, I like Linux. I just wish it was a little less flaky
when
> > trying to modify it. Examples:
> >
> > Upgrading RPM 3 to 4 caused the package database to need to be
converted,
> > however no matter what I tried, even following the directions it gave,
it
> > never could convert the database. This left me in a state where I could
no
> > longer install any new software unless i did it from tarball, not even
from
> > the CD. I couldn't even reinstall RPM 3.
>
> Better to start with an rpm 4 distro, you apparently made quite
> a mess of things -
Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
> > This is what led me to wipe the
> > disk and install FreeBSD.
>
> You can find Linux distros that don't use rpm as well.
With far fewer packages available for them.
> > I had serious problems with my video adapter using XFree86 4.0.1, and
it's a
> > supported card. Yet 4.0.1 worked fine under FreeBSD.
>
> Haven't ever seen a problem like that here
I posted about it quite often a few months ago.
> > I had problems with using two identical PCI network cards (3c905b's) in
the
> > same box. Turns out, you need to specially configure the network driver
for
> > this scenario, since it can't figure out how to autoconfigure identical
> > cards together.
>
> That's funny, I was running 2 ne2000s, then 2 realtek 8139s.
> Now I'm running 2 eepro100s - I'm not sure why you found it
> so difficult.
Really? Then explain this:
http://www.coastnet.com/~pramsey/linux/homenet.html
Pay close attention to section 3.1 and the "Two Identical Network Cards"
section.
> > Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default. It took a
lot
> > of dinking around to figure out how to enable it, and what settings to
use.
>
> hmm, most folks just use the hdparm command, a 3 second deal.
"Most folks" don't even know hdparm exists. It took me 3 months to figure
out that DMA wasn't on, and then many hours to figure out the settings for
it.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3A807FE7...@cvzoom.net...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default. It took a
lot
> > of dinking around to figure out how to enable it, and what settings to
use.
>
> the highest level of DMA is automatically probed at boot time. But,
> this can also be bad, since there have been drives/controllers that
> don't work very well with their advertised level of DMA, and in fact
> causes crashes. For example, people have had to drop down to UDMA33,
> because UDMA66 wasn't supported like it was advertised on the box. But
> there's probably only a few drive/controller combos that have this
> problem.
It's much easier for the few people having trouble to drop down than to
force everyone to enable it.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:1l0g6.472$ig2.10221@news1-hme0...
> > And yes, they have that web site prediction, posted by Adam,
> > which states we will all turn to methane gas in just 6 months.
>
> DNS servers nobody could find ther website. Amusing that MS is
continuously
> claiming linux is going to die when they continue to find more uses for it
> in their own company. If windows is not even able to run a reliable DNS
> server then how can it compete at anything else.
Perhaps you should look before you speak. MS's primary DNS servers run on
Win2k. Theri backup DNS servers are hosted by Akamai who run Linux.
Peter Köhlmann
Sure.
There's only one catch: When you find out that you should drop down,
the system is probably just going down and can't do that.
There's also that possibility that you can't even install it.
I like the way SuSE made it in Version 7 much better.
You get a nice looking Checkbox in YAST2 and have the
option there to switch it on at boot time.
Still possible to do it the old way, naturally.
If it does not work OK, just boot only to Single-mode.
It's not switched on then, and you can switch it off.
Now, that's choice.
By the way, I know of at least 2 Win-Systems where you can't put
on DMA for IDE drives. Both run Win98. Both are slow as molasses.
Both have controllers AND drives which are quite capable to do it,
but Wintendo in it's infinite wisdom decided not to.
--
"The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."
yt...@mutilation.net
> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A803435...@pobox.com...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > "Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
>> > news:95mgsg$hr5$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>> > > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
>> >
>> > I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing since
>> > sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the crash-proof
>> > masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
>>
>> Stop putting words in peoples mouths - Linux users rightly
>> claim that, as a Unix variant, Linux is more reliable than
>> the microsoft family of products.
> I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others state
> quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so numerous
> times.
They havent actually, unless referring to their own experience with their
own installs. Demonstrate that it is otherwise.
>> There is no basis in fact for this statement - in fact, it's a lot
>> more likely that it's optimized for xeon, or dec alpha.
> Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386. That
> means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps install
> a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> still be a generic one.
Alright, thats it eric. I demand that you actually get some experience from
something other than books (thats right, real life) before you continue this
argument.
And besides that, even if it WERE true that the linux kernel was optimized
for 386 chips (which is actually quite a meaningless statement if you know
anything about the kernel or kernel architecture in general) because theyre
the lowest common demonimator; its a hell of alot better than optimizing
the entire operating system for the lowest common demoninator of intellect.
-----.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:95rhf3$3cu$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> > "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A803435...@pobox.com...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
> >> > news:95mgsg$hr5$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> >> > > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
> >> >
> >> > I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing
since
> >> > sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the
crash-proof
> >> > masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
> >>
> >> Stop putting words in peoples mouths - Linux users rightly
> >> claim that, as a Unix variant, Linux is more reliable than
> >> the microsoft family of products.
>
> > I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others
state
> > quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so
numerous
> > times.
>
> They havent actually, unless referring to their own experience with their
> own installs. Demonstrate that it is otherwise.
It appears that most of Charlie's more exuberant statements are not archived
on deja, probably due to him putting an X-Archive attribute in his message,
since he knew they would be used against him.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=715528378&fmt=text
"From practical EXPERIENCE I can safely say that Linux doesn't crash."
That's not even all, he claims that *NO OTHER OS* has higher uptimes than
Linux.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=705087775&fmt=text
"That and the fact it's totally free for download from the internet
and it has the most tremendous uptime of any OS on the market."
> >> There is no basis in fact for this statement - in fact, it's a lot
> >> more likely that it's optimized for xeon, or dec alpha.
>
> > Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
That
> > means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps
install
> > a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> > still be a generic one.
>
> Alright, thats it eric. I demand that you actually get some experience
from
> something other than books (thats right, real life) before you continue
this
> argument.
Note that you don't correct my supposed lack of experience. I know exactly
what i'm talking about.
> And besides that, even if it WERE true that the linux kernel was optimized
> for 386 chips (which is actually quite a meaningless statement if you know
> anything about the kernel or kernel architecture in general)
It's not a meaningless statement. There are numerous ways to optimize a
kernel for a particular processor.
1) Use compiler optimizations designed for that processor. These will
continue to work in most later processors, but you won't get many of the
speed improvements the processor is capable of.
2) Not using processor specific instructions to take advantage of speed
increases in later processors.
3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
increase the efficiency of the kernel.
> because theyre
> the lowest common demonimator; its a hell of alot better than optimizing
> the entire operating system for the lowest common demoninator of
intellect.
Hand waving. You'r not saying anything here.
Aaron R. Kulkis
#ifdef i386
386-variant code
#else
#ifdef i486
486-variant code
#else
#ifdef i586
Pentium-varian code
#else
#ifdef i686
Pentium-II variant code
#else
#ifdef i786
Pentium-III variant code
#endif i786
#endif i686
#endif i586
#endif i486
#endif i386
>
> 3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
That's an idiotic Microsoft trick.
YOu can't guarantee exactly WHAT is in the cache in a multi-processing
system, you fool.
>
> For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
> processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
> increase the efficiency of the kernel.
>
> > because theyre
> > the lowest common demonimator; its a hell of alot better than optimizing
> > the entire operating system for the lowest common demoninator of
> intellect.
>
> Hand waving. You'r not saying anything here.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
J Sloan
> For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
> processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
> increase the efficiency of the kernel.
So how is that in any way different from the Linux kernel?
jjs
Charlie Ebert
If you cut away the other peoples statements and just leave EF's,
what do you have?
>
>I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others state
>quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so numerous
>times.
>
This is correct. I've never crashed Linux.
Linux can only die if you have hardware failure, I've had none,
power failure, I've had some, or the user just halt's the OS.
Other than that, Linux don't crash.
>Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386. That
>means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps install
>a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
>still be a generic one.
>
Nothing to disagree with here.
But it's a meaningless comment as we see below.
>
>Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
>
>
Until the next release I think.
>With far fewer packages available for them.
>
>
>I posted about it quite often a few months ago.
>
>
>Really? Then explain this:
>http://www.coastnet.com/~pramsey/linux/homenet.html
>
>Pay close attention to section 3.1 and the "Two Identical Network Cards"
>section.
>
>
>"Most folks" don't even know hdparm exists. It took me 3 months to figure
>out that DMA wasn't on, and then many hours to figure out the settings for
>it.
>
So he indicates in this last sentence it took him 3 months to figure
out that his DMA wasn't turned on, then 'many' hours to figure out
the settings for it.
Fair enough. Then he's compiled a kernel to fix it as compiling a kernel
is the only way to turn the DMA on.
You can also set the compiler settings for the kernel by selecting 386, 486,
Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III and so on...
It doesn't take 'many' hours to flip one switch and re-compile the kernel.
A Pentium 120 can do the job in less than 30 minutes.
Charlie Ebert
>It appears that most of Charlie's more exuberant statements are not archived
>on deja, probably due to him putting an X-Archive attribute in his message,
>since he knew they would be used against him.
>
Excuse me? I did what?
>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=715528378&fmt=text
>
>"From practical EXPERIENCE I can safely say that Linux doesn't crash."
>
>That's not even all, he claims that *NO OTHER OS* has higher uptimes than
>Linux.
>
>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=705087775&fmt=text
>
>"That and the fact it's totally free for download from the internet
>and it has the most tremendous uptime of any OS on the market."
>
Well, you don't need to search backwards in deja for this.
I will say it again if need be. Linux has the highest uptime of
any OS on the market.
>
>Note that you don't correct my supposed lack of experience. I know exactly
>what i'm talking about.
>
>> And besides that, even if it WERE true that the linux kernel was optimized
>> for 386 chips (which is actually quite a meaningless statement if you know
>> anything about the kernel or kernel architecture in general)
>
>It's not a meaningless statement. There are numerous ways to optimize a
>kernel for a particular processor.
>
It is meaningless because the Pentium III still shares the same
basic command set the 386 did. They just added more commands.
And when you recompile the kernel for these different chips, these
new commands are issued from the kernel.
>1) Use compiler optimizations designed for that processor. These will
>continue to work in most later processors, but you won't get many of the
>speed improvements the processor is capable of.
>
As I just said, if you flip the Pentium III switch on the Linux kernel
and re-compile it, you will be using the Pentium III command set then.
>2) Not using processor specific instructions to take advantage of speed
>increases in later processors.
>
Linux does.
>3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
>
It does.
>For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
>processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
>increase the efficiency of the kernel.
>
>> because theyre
>> the lowest common demonimator; its a hell of alot better than optimizing
>> the entire operating system for the lowest common demoninator of
>intellect.
>
>Hand waving. You'r not saying anything here.
>
FreeBSD does the same thing only globally with MAKEWORLD.
I'm surprised you didn't nit pick Linux for not being able to
do a MAKE WORLD which it can't do easily.
Now, that would be a comment with substance.
J Sloan
> I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others state
> quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so numerous
> times.
So, perhaps it never crashed for him - did you consider that?
> Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
On the S/390 mainframe? or an Alpha? How about a PowerPC?
> That
> means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps install
> a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> still be a generic one.
Most x86 distros ship with a boot kernel that will run on
a 386 with no mathco, but also include kernels that are
optimized for 486, 586, or 686.
> Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> With far fewer packages available for them.
All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
> I posted about it quite often a few months ago.
Sorry, I wasn't around then.
> Really? Then explain this:
> http://www.coastnet.com/~pramsey/linux/homenet.html
Looks like 2 isa cards. IIRC I used 2 addresses for my
2 isa cards. But when I bought a new box and used realtek
8139 cards, they shared the interrupt. I just swapped them
for eepro100s, and guess what? They still share interrupts:
#cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 7719284 XT-PIC timer
1: 92224 XT-PIC keyboard
2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
5: 1973805 XT-PIC EMU10K1
7: 33 XT-PIC usb-ohci
9: 0 XT-PIC acpi
10: 277003 XT-PIC eth0, eth1
12: 1588145 XT-PIC PS/2 Mouse
14: 89872 XT-PIC ide0
15: 3278 XT-PIC ide1
NMI: 0
ERR: 0
As you can see, it all works, no muss, no fuss.
> "Most folks" don't even know hdparm exists. It took me 3 months to figure
> out that DMA wasn't on, and then many hours to figure out the settings for
> it.
But you're not supposed to be "most folks", so don't
use that excuse here.
jjs
Bob Hauck
wrote:
>Perhaps you should look before you speak. MS's primary DNS servers run on
>Win2k. Theri backup DNS servers are hosted by Akamai who run Linux.
There is no priority order with DNS. Primary and secondary are equal as
far as the outside world is concerned. The primary and secondary
servers end up handling about equal shares of the load.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Bob Hauck
>"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
>news:3A807FE7...@cvzoom.net...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default.
>> Quite right. I especially love the feature that's in FreeBSD 4.2 where
>> the highest level of DMA is automatically probed at boot time. But,
>> this can also be bad, since there have been drives/controllers that
>> don't work very well with their advertised level of DMA, and in fact
>> causes crashes.
>It's much easier for the few people having trouble to drop down than to
>force everyone to enable it.
This laptop doesn't like DMA at all. It seems to work, until you
suspend and resume. After a while, all of a sudden you can't start any
programs. You are forced to reboot, at which time you find out that the
whole filesystem is trashed.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3A81A524...@yahoo.com...
Moron, do you understand that these are *COMPILE* time definitions, not
run-time ones? Follow the thread, this started because I commented that the
kernel of most distro's is optimized for a 386 and requires you to recompile
or find a more optimized one in an RPM somewhere.
> > 3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
>
> That's an idiotic Microsoft trick.
>
> YOu can't guarantee exactly WHAT is in the cache in a multi-processing
> system, you fool.
Who cares what's IN the cache? The comment was about the architecture of
the cache.
Erik Funkenbusch
Here's how you configure and compile a FreeBSD kernel:
cd to /sys/i386/conf, copy GENERIC to whatever name you choose. Edit the
new file and comment out or add options that are fully documented in the
LINT file, cd to /usr/src and type make buildkernel.
Configuring your linux kernel is MUCH more involved.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others
state
> > quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so
numerous
> > times.
>
> So, perhaps it never crashed for him - did you consider that?
There is a difference between stating that you've never seen it crash, and
stating that it doesn't crash. One is an absolute, one is qualified.
> > Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
>
> On the S/390 mainframe? or an Alpha? How about a PowerPC?
There is only one CPU supported of those families, thus their lowest common
denominator is that single CPU.
> > That
> > means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps
install
> > a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> > still be a generic one.
>
> Most x86 distros ship with a boot kernel that will run on
> a 386 with no mathco, but also include kernels that are
> optimized for 486, 586, or 686.
Most? Some. Mandrake doesn't.
> > Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
>
> So, why not stick with RPM 3?
Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video card
problem.
> > With far fewer packages available for them.
>
> All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
No, all RPM packages do not contain tarballs. Where do you get this form?
SRPM's include source, not RPM's.
J Sloan
> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
> > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
>
> Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video card
> problem.
Eh?
So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
> > All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
>
> No, all RPM packages do not contain tarballs. Where do you get this form?
> SRPM's include source, not RPM's.
Yes, of course I meant all SRPMS, good catch.
jjs
Les Mikesell
"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:ONog6.123$V6.1...@ruti.visi.com...
I never understood why you should have to deal with the obscure and
arbitrary devices names that *bsd uses in this process. It is much easier
to pick the descriptive choices that you see with the Linux 'make xconfig'
step.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Ray Chason
>No sane person would use Linux on a home desktop system as their
>primary operating system.
I don't suffer from insanity. I'm enjoying every minute of it.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
Ray Chason
>In article <dDEf6.29252$wq.40...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Pete Goodwin"
><ime...@remove-to-reply.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> But I don't hate Linux!
>
>Sometimes you seem to, other times you don't.
Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
gift to computing.
Peter Hayes
wrote:
> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A81FD45...@pobox.com...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
> >
> > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
>
> Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video card
> problem.
Download the mandatory 4.0.2 files from XFree86.org, run ./Xinstall.sh and
answer "no" to everything (except the "do you want to install" question,
obviously). This installs 4.0.2, but obviously bypasses the RPM database.
I've done this numerous times on RedHat 6.2 and Mandrake 7.2 boxes and it
works every time. You might be able to change to 4.0.2 from 4.0.x by
fiddling round with symlinks, but that'd take longer.
This is the magic of Linux. Unlike Windows, there's always a way round
some arbitrarily imposed barrier - in this case a change of packet
management. In Windows the best you can expect is "... setup will not
continue", or the old "Incorrect DOS version".
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
Pete Goodwin
Ray Chason <johnn...@southland.smart.net.SPAMMEN.VERBOTEN> wrote:
> Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
> just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
> gift to computing.
Thank you, someone who can see what I'm saying!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Donn Miller
> I never understood why you should have to deal with the obscure and
> arbitrary devices names that *bsd uses in this process. It is much easier
> to pick the descriptive choices that you see with the Linux 'make xconfig'
> step.
The FreeBSD kernel config file is very well documented with comments.
For example, it's pretty obvious what mse0 is:
# mse: Logitech and ATI InPort bus mouse ports
device mse0 at isa? port 0x23c irq 5
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Craig Kelley
> Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386. That
> means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps install
> a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> still be a generic one.
RedHat has been installing optimized kernels and glibc libraries since
version 6.0. If you install it on a 686, your kernel and C library
will be optimized for a 686.
> > Better to start with an rpm 4 distro, you apparently made quite
> > a mess of things -
>
> Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
The RPM 3->4 was a huge problem. They stupidly made the rpm-4.x
install files only work with RPM 4 (!). This reminds me of lha for
the Amiga way back when, I downloaded a new version using Archie
(bonus points to anyone who remembers that) and you could only unpack
it by using that version of lha. Talk about a chicken-egg problem.
The RPM folks made you install version 3.0.5, which could then install
RPM version 4.x -- this also allowed you to upgrade your RPM database
without any hassle. They thought that these problems wouldn't affect
the average-joe user, but when rpm-4 packages hit the servers it
caused all sorts of problems. I know of 2 friends that moved over to
Debian after that.. :) Couple all that with RedHat releasing
Pinstripe using the as-yet-unreleased RPM 4.x and you have problems.
> > > This is what led me to wipe the
> > > disk and install FreeBSD.
> >
> > You can find Linux distros that don't use rpm as well.
>
> With far fewer packages available for them.
Au Contrair, using alien one can convert RPM packages into debs.
> > That's funny, I was running 2 ne2000s, then 2 realtek 8139s.
> > Now I'm running 2 eepro100s - I'm not sure why you found it
> > so difficult.
>
> Really? Then explain this:
> http://www.coastnet.com/~pramsey/linux/homenet.html
>
> Pay close attention to section 3.1 and the "Two Identical Network Cards"
> section.
Well, it is only 4 lines of explanation... Not exactly 'difficult',
especially considering that he's talking about ISA cards, for which
probing is a dangerous task anyway.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Craig Kelley
> <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in message
> news:95rhf3$3cu$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > And besides that, even if it WERE true that the linux kernel was optimized
> > for 386 chips (which is actually quite a meaningless statement if you know
> > anything about the kernel or kernel architecture in general)
>
> It's not a meaningless statement. There are numerous ways to optimize a
> kernel for a particular processor.
>
> 1) Use compiler optimizations designed for that processor. These will
> continue to work in most later processors, but you won't get many of the
> speed improvements the processor is capable of.
>
> 2) Not using processor specific instructions to take advantage of speed
> increases in later processors.
>
> 3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
>
> For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
> processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
> increase the efficiency of the kernel.
Linux does this as well. Why would you think that it doesn't?
Craig Kelley
LOL
---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
cd /usr/src/linux
make menuconfig
--> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
make bzImage
---- End ----
MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
Craig Kelley
> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A81FD45...@pobox.com...
>
> > > Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
> >
> > On the S/390 mainframe? or an Alpha? How about a PowerPC?
>
> There is only one CPU supported of those families, thus their lowest common
> denominator is that single CPU.
That is a lie.
Linux can/is compiled for specific CPUs. Most distributions even ship
optimized kernel/libc images for your specific chip.
> > Most x86 distros ship with a boot kernel that will run on
> > a 386 with no mathco, but also include kernels that are
> > optimized for 486, 586, or 686.
>
> Most? Some. Mandrake doesn't.
Umm, Mandrake originally made their claim to fame by having everything
compiled with pgcc; nowadays it uses i586 optimized code for egcs on
*everything*.
RedHat 6 and higher have separate packages for different x86
architectures (kernel and libc).
chrisv
>---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
>cd /usr/src/linux
>make menuconfig
> --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
>make bzImage
>---- End ----
Too bad that doesn't work.
>MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
Yes.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:m1pugt3...@inconnu.isu.edu...
I doubt this process gives you even a fraction of the configurability of the
FreeBSD model. FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
kernel.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> >
> > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
card
> > problem.
>
> Eh?
>
> So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
> > > All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
> >
> > No, all RPM packages do not contain tarballs. Where do you get this
form?
> > SRPM's include source, not RPM's.
>
> Yes, of course I meant all SRPMS, good catch.
SRPMS are not that common.
Nigel
> kernel.
>
Who cares which is the best out of Linux and FreeBSD, the availability of
both of these operating systems helps to give users more choice about what
to run on their machines and nobody should force anyone else to use one or
the other - it is up to the users what they run on their computer unlike
the MS view of 'You must run windows or not use a computer' which is a very
bad attitude for the computer industry.
I hope both Linux and FreeBSD continue to live forever (together with BEOS,
QNX and any future alternatives) and keep consumer choice available for all.
Many OS choices = competition which forces innovation and high quality
One OS Choice = lack of innovation and users being forced to use low
quality bug riddled crap (sound familiar).
Mart van de Wege
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
Umm, like "cd /usr/src/linux ; make xconfig ; make dep bzImage
modules modules_install ; mv arch/i386/boot/bzImage
/boot/vmlinuz-<version> ; linuxconf ; shutdown -r now"?
That's 6 simple commands and a graphical config utility with
comprehensive online help. Eric, if you state that editing a text
file on FreeBSD is simpler than that, that just proves that
you've never even been NEAR a Linux kernel compile, let alone
attempted it.
Mart
Craig Kelley
> Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>
> >---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
> >cd /usr/src/linux
> >make menuconfig
> > --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
> >make bzImage
> >---- End ----
>
> Too bad that doesn't work.
Yes it does. Would you care to elaborate?
> >MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
>
> Yes.
Uh-huh...
Craig Kelley
Your anti-Linux soul is shining through here.
You can doubt all you want, but I know for a *fact* that you're
wrong. FreeBSD is great, but claiming that building a kernel for it
is easier than Linux is simply inane.
Craig Kelley
> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A822A61...@pobox.com...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> > >
> > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
> card
> > > problem.
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
>
> Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
> their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
rpm --target=i686 --rebuild XFree86-4.0.2-1.src.rpm
rpm -Uvh /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i686/*
> > > > All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
> > >
> > > No, all RPM packages do not contain tarballs. Where do you get this
> form?
> > > SRPM's include source, not RPM's.
> >
> > Yes, of course I meant all SRPMS, good catch.
>
> SRPMS are not that common.
Name one open-source RPM package that doesn't have an SRPM available
for download.
Charlie Ebert
I will grant that FreeBSD is a good OS technically.
I've used it and I'm impressed with it's performance
and technology.
I don't like it's license nor it's upgrade path
or it's lack of support for drivers.
This is why I'm using Debian today.
But I do want to ask this EF. Why do you wonder
about this by doubting when you could just try it
yourself? Why doubt something you haven't tried?
I've tried FreeBSD, makeworld,,,, it was very fast
stuff in it's day.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
Craig Kelley
> chrisv <chr...@chrisv.com> writes:
>
> > Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
> > >cd /usr/src/linux
> > >make menuconfig
> > > --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
> > >make bzImage
> > >---- End ----
> >
> > Too bad that doesn't work.
>
> Yes it does. Would you care to elaborate?
Perhaps you'll need to `make dep` if you haven't built a kernel
before.
Charlie Ebert
Exactly. This is common knowledge for the Linux user.
It's one of the first things you learn.
EF has been posting pro Windows and Anti Linux bulletins
for years now. It's been years.
And he's never used Linux and I'll bet you a dollar to
a donought that he's never actually used FreeBSD either....
Being a former developer for Windows based gui products,
I can already tell from the comments of EF and Chad Myers
that the Windows camp came to town with unloaded guns.
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>"Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>>In article <dDEf6.29252$wq.40...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Pete Goodwin"
>><ime...@remove-to-reply.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But I don't hate Linux!
>>
>>Sometimes you seem to, other times you don't.
>
>Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
>just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
>gift to computing.
No, thinking that Microsoft is god's gift to computing is
actually far more dangerous. Indulging in the linux variant
is far less dangerous. Linux is not quite so tightly defined
as "Windows" or "Mac".
Infact, the openstep for GNU port started before Apple
decided to do likewise.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
yt...@mutilation.net
But you dont actually know, because youve never used it.
> FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
> kernel.
So does linux. make xconfig.
I have alot of experience customizing and compiling both kernels. Freebsd
does indeed have more configuration options, mostly because it NEEDS them,
(linux takes care of the equivalent with kernel MODULES)
and partially because the configuration (see the LINT kernel) is full
of snazzy options like what color you want to make your console font.
Once again, eric, you display your total lack of knowledge in the field.
Stop talking about UNIX of any kind at once.
-----.
yt...@mutilation.net
It depends on your definition of "easy". Certian aspects of it are much more
straight forward, and the freebsd handbook is certianly better in most ways
than any linux documentation available.
But when it comes right down to actually configuring and compiling, they take
about the same amount of time and are of about the same level of difficulty.
-----.
Les Mikesell
"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
news:3A829575...@cvzoom.net...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > I never understood why you should have to deal with the obscure and
> > arbitrary devices names that *bsd uses in this process. It is much
easier
> > to pick the descriptive choices that you see with the Linux 'make
xconfig'
> > step.
>
> The FreeBSD kernel config file is very well documented with comments.
> For example, it's pretty obvious what mse0 is:
>
> # mse: Logitech and ATI InPort bus mouse ports
> device mse0 at isa? port 0x23c irq 5
Sorry, but that's a long way from pushing the button for the one you want
with a nearby help button to help you decide. I've never forgiven
the freebsd procedure for the time I tried to add some memory to
a production server and bring it back up quickly. I already had the
new kernel built with the right MAXMEM, but when I tried to boot
up it decided that the basically undocumented BOUNCE_BUFFERS
were shifted to an unusable place and refused to run. I don't
need surprises like that.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
J Sloan
> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A822A61...@pobox.com...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> > >
> > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
> card
> > > problem.
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
>
> Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
> their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
hmm, isn't it something like:
xmkmf -a
make
<wait a while>
make install
???
> SRPMS are not that common.
For every RPM, there is a corresponding SRPM.
jjs
J Sloan
> I doubt this process gives you even a fraction of the configurability of the
> FreeBSD model. FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
> kernel.
I have built kernels in FreeBSD, and I've build a lot more in Linux.
IIRC for FreBSD you edit a big config file, then make the kernel
Linux has the following methods of configuring the kernel:
1. a script, invoked by "make config", which asks yes/no/module
questions for each option, of which there are several hundred.
Hitting the return key selects the default.
2. a nice looking curses-based colored menu driven configuration
program which is invoked by "make menuconfig".
3. an X windows (tk-based) program that, interestingly, features
mouse-selectable menus for each general area of kernel
configuration. It is invoked by "make xconfig".
After using the configuration tool of choice, one types e.g.
make dep bzlilo modules modules_install
and go about doing whatever other business is at hand
for the next 10 minutes or so. When ready to try the new
kernel (make sure lilo has been made aware of it), type
init 6
and watch the new kernel come to life after the reboot.
jjs
J Sloan
> Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>
> >---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
> >cd /usr/src/linux
> >make menuconfig
> > --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
> >make bzImage
> >---- End ----
>
> Too bad that doesn't work.
Actually, there's no reason that wouldn't work, as long
as the kernel is non-modular and lilo, being configured
to look for /vmlinuz, is run before rebooting.
> >MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
>
> Yes.
Sounds like you haven't built any kernels.
jjs
Ray Chason
>On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 07:28:26 -0000, Ray Chason <johnn...@southland.smart.net.SPAMMEN.VERBOTEN> wrote:
>>"Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <dDEf6.29252$wq.40...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Pete Goodwin"
>>><ime...@remove-to-reply.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But I don't hate Linux!
>>>
>>>Sometimes you seem to, other times you don't.
>>
>>Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
>>just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
>>gift to computing.
>
> No, thinking that Microsoft is god's gift to computing is
> actually far more dangerous. Indulging in the linux variant
> is far less dangerous. Linux is not quite so tightly defined
> as "Windows" or "Mac".
Perhaps so, but Linux isn't perfect, and it won't become so if we
pretend it is. God has made no gift to computing, other than some
gifted programmers.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
yt...@mutilation.net
> ???
Again, eric has no idea what hes talking about.
Seriously eric, run linux for a while before you bitch about it.
Its quite clear that you never have.
-----.
Erik Funkenbusch
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> writes:
>
> > "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A822A61...@pobox.com...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> > > >
> > > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my
video
> > card
> > > > problem.
> > >
> > > Eh?
> > >
> > > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> > > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
> >
> > Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
> > their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
>
> rpm --target=i686 --rebuild XFree86-4.0.2-1.src.rpm
> rpm -Uvh /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i686/*
Do you even *TRY* to follow the thread? I was commenting that I had to
upgrade RPM to get the files, and J Sloan was advocating downloading the
source from XFree86.org and compiling it.
Then you, moronically ignorant pop up with RPM syntax. The point was to do
it WITHOUT RPM.
> > SRPMS are not that common.
>
> Name one open-source RPM package that doesn't have an SRPM available
> for download.
Finding it is a different story.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:slrn986gr8....@charlie.ebertlan...
> >Umm, like "cd /usr/src/linux ; make xconfig ; make dep bzImage
> >modules modules_install ; mv arch/i386/boot/bzImage
> >/boot/vmlinuz-<version> ; linuxconf ; shutdown -r now"?
> >That's 6 simple commands and a graphical config utility with
> >comprehensive online help. Eric, if you state that editing a text
> >file on FreeBSD is simpler than that, that just proves that
> >you've never even been NEAR a Linux kernel compile, let alone
> >attempted it.
> >
> >Mart
>
> Exactly. This is common knowledge for the Linux user.
> It's one of the first things you learn.
But.. but.. All you linux people said that there is no reason to recompile
your kernels, so why would this knowledge be "common" and "one of the first
things you learn" if you don't need to ever do it?
Karel Jansens
For the same reason we were once taught Latin: It helps you to
understand the important stuff.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
chrisv
>Actually, there's no reason that wouldn't work, as long
>as the kernel is non-modular and lilo, being configured
>to look for /vmlinuz, is run before rebooting.
Sounds pretty involved.
yt...@mutilation.net
>>
>> Name one open-source RPM package that doesn't have an SRPM available
>> for download.
> Finding it is a different story.
Now dont you feel like an idiot.
-----.
je...@pyromania.mishnet
Not really. Just follow the written instructions for making
a kernel boot disk and use a little common sense.
Like many tasks, building a kernel requires understanding of
certain abstract concepts. No amount of gui shiny happiness
will make those concepts any simpler.
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>je...@pyromania.mishnet () wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 07:28:26 -0000, Ray Chason <johnn...@southland.smart.net.SPAMMEN.VERBOTEN> wrote:
>>>"Edward Rosten" <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <dDEf6.29252$wq.40...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Pete Goodwin"
>>>><ime...@remove-to-reply.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But I don't hate Linux!
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes you seem to, other times you don't.
>>>
>>>Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
>>>just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
>>>gift to computing.
>>
>> No, thinking that Microsoft is god's gift to computing is
>> actually far more dangerous. Indulging in the linux variant
>> is far less dangerous. Linux is not quite so tightly defined
>> as "Windows" or "Mac".
>
>Perhaps so, but Linux isn't perfect, and it won't become so if we
>pretend it is. God has made no gift to computing, other than some
As I said. That is a grand fallacy simply due to the fact that
there are so many valid notions of what linux is. There is
nothing holding Linux in place, fixed in the image of that some
random user might view as perfection.
Besides, even the notion that "unix is god's gift to computing"
in no way implies that progress should or would cease.
Claiming you are the best and resting on your laurels are
entirely orthogonal things.
>gifted programmers.
[deletia]
Viewing Windows as something to emulate is far more dangerous.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
Donn Miller
> Do you even *TRY* to follow the thread? I was commenting that I had to
> upgrade RPM to get the files, and J Sloan was advocating downloading the
> source from XFree86.org and compiling it.
I usually build XFree86 from source. Takes forever, because I could
never get parallel builds to work without bombing out someplace. Oh
yeah, and I use -O3, which prolongs the build even further.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Peter Hayes
> Linux has the following methods of configuring the kernel:
>
> 1. a script, invoked by "make config", which asks yes/no/module
> questions for each option, of which there are several hundred.
> Hitting the return key selects the default.
And make one mistake and you have to start again, even the backspace key
isn't of any use correcting mistakes.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
The Ghost In The Machine
<j...@pobox.com>
wrote
on Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:09:38 GMT
<3A8389A2...@pobox.com>:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A822A61...@pobox.com...
>> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > > "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
>> > >
>> > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
>> card
>> > > problem.
>> >
>> > Eh?
>> >
>> > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
>> > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
>>
>> Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
>> their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
>
>hmm, isn't it something like:
>
>xmkmf -a
>make
><wait a while>
>make install
>
>???
The instructions are somewhere in the XFree stuff, and presumably
distil to about what you said above ... although there's the issue
of building xmkmf.
I think Mozilla was worse. :-) (I'd love to try building X, although
in my case I have a slow link and downloading 70 megs of compressed
files takes overnight. Still, no biggie; I just have to do it; then
I can build Mozilla on top of that. :-) )
>
>> SRPMS are not that common.
>
>For every RPM, there is a corresponding SRPM.
In some cases, there are two; Debian also has a similar issue.
The include files and static libraries are often stored in xyzzy-devel.
Or maybe I'm reversing things: an SRPM can build more than one RPM.
But this is more or less true.
(My main problem with RPM: I'm not sure there's an option to auto-fetch
packages it needs and install them. Debian's dselect is much more
elegant in that regard -- IMO, anyway.)
>
>jjs
>
>
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:11h:52m actually running Linux.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
Les Mikesell
"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:QvNg6.624$a7.5...@ruti.visi.com...
It was necessary a few years ago, so a lot of people know how to
do it and that it is easy. It isn't generally necessary now, but it
is still easy.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Donn Miller
> But.. but.. All you linux people said that there is no reason to recompile
> your kernels, so why would this knowledge be "common" and "one of the first
> things you learn" if you don't need to ever do it?
But, maybe there's been an update in one of the kernel modules? If the
source for modules have been updated, you can just unload the old one,
compile, install, and reload. Kernel modules ARE part of the kernel.
J Sloan
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:19:57 GMT, J Sloan <j...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Linux has the following methods of configuring the kernel:
> >
> > 1. a script, invoked by "make config", which asks yes/no/module
> > questions for each option, of which there are several hundred.
> > Hitting the return key selects the default.
>
> And make one mistake and you have to start again, even the backspace key
> isn't of any use correcting mistakes.
Just so.
If one is prone to mistakes, he would want to use one of
the menu driven configuration tools.
jjs
J Sloan
no module support
lilo expects /vmlinuz?
run lilo
If those 3 simple points sound "pretty involved", I would
advise you not to attempt it yourself -
jjs
J Sloan
No Erik, let's get this straight - you don't have to compile
your kernel, especially with the modular kernels shipped
with the distros nowadays - but you CAN compile it, and
like the hot rodders who like to replace the cams, carbs,
and exhaust systems, etc, techies like to see what makes
the kernel tick, and they naturally will "roll their own" if they
are adventurous enough. But, just like the average bloke
who just drives the car without ever looking under the hood,
you can certainly use Linux without ever compiling a kernel.
jjs
Erik Funkenbusch
That's not what Charlie said. What charlie said would be equivelant to
every car owner also being such an enthusiest.
Mart van de Wege
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
> But.. but.. All you linux people said that there is no reason
> to recompile your kernels, so why would this knowledge be
> "common" and "one of the first things you learn" if you don't
> need to ever do it?
>
>
>
>
Ok,
I'll feed you. I am a bit of a tinkerer, sure, but most of my
system is installed as precompiled binaries. However, the first
thing I found out after installing Linux, is that you can
optimize it to your hardware by compiling software.
At the moment I only compile things myself if I consider maximum
speed as critical. The kernel certainly fulfills that criterium,
as does Mozilla, so these things get compiled by myself. For all
others there is apt :-)
A custom built kernel can speed up your machine by 5-20%. Try
doing that on Windows without paying big $$$.
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
J Sloan
> "J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
> > No Erik, let's get this straight - you don't have to compile
> > your kernel, especially with the modular kernels shipped
> > with the distros nowadays - but you CAN compile it, and
> > like the hot rodders who like to replace the cams, carbs,
> > and exhaust systems, etc, techies like to see what makes
> > the kernel tick, and they naturally will "roll their own" if they
> > are adventurous enough. But, just like the average bloke
> > who just drives the car without ever looking under the hood,
> > you can certainly use Linux without ever compiling a kernel.
>
> That's not what Charlie said. What charlie said would be equivelant to
> every car owner also being such an enthusiest.
Well, perhaps you misinterpreted what Charlie said.
jjs
Bloody Viking
flatfi...@att.net wrote:
: No sane person would use Linux on a home desktop system as their
: primary operating system.
No sane person needlessly wastes huge amounts of money on software. THAT is
why I use Linux on my home desktop.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
Bloody Viking
Mart van de Wege (mvd...@wanadoo.nl) wrote:
: I have been following your adventures with LM 7.2 for some time, and
: apart frome the abuse you heap on your poor system, I must admit that
: your postings confirm to other rumours I've heard and my (admittedly
: limited) experience with Mandrake.
: It seems that Mandrake is so obsessed with being on the cutting edge on
: one side and their market share on the other side, that they have started
: shipping defective distros. This is a sure path to oblivion in my
: opinion, and I would suggest you switch to another distro ASAP. That
: would also bring the noise level of your postings waaay down.
May I suggest Slackware? That distro has served me well, better than any
other. I tried Red Hat, but reverted to Slackware when I had my perennial LILO
problems. If LILO is not a problem, Red Hat is a good distro, and is up to
date though not bleeding edge. Red Hat is about the most popular distro out
there. You can even find it at a Best Buy. Stores that cater to the IT crowd
will have several distros in stock, even Slackware. There's plenty of choices
of distros once you abandon Mandrake.
Were it not for my idiopathic LILO problems, I probably would be using Red Hat
instead of Slackware. Its install is nicely automated, almost like installing
Windows 95 compared to Slackware. Mostly people who use Slackware are Linux
old timers when Slackware and Red Hat were the only major distros.
Bloody Viking
Matthew Gardiner (kiwiu...@netscape.net) wrote:
: Then I must be a complete fruit loop, I use FreeBSD. hehehehe, hahahaha,
: hohohoho
I thought of trying FreeBSD. If I were to hit the lottery, I'd be runnin'
Linux Extreme on a homebrew supercomputer. What would be funny would be a
FreeBSD user adding in Linux device driver routines to the BSD kernel source
to make up for BSD's lack of equipment support. That would make a "LinBSD"
Linux/FreeBSD hybrid UNIX.
J Sloan
> 1. The programs "I" need to use don't exist on the Linux platform
Great, so use what you like -
> 2. There are plenty of free/shareware programs for Windows that are
> far better than the Linux counterparts.
Generally speaking, windows has shareware, Linux
has freeware. While I disagree with your view, I can
see how one could form that view given the huge
head start that microsoft is now squandering.
I prefer Linux, and I've voted with my wallet,
If you like windows better, go use it, and have
a nice life. But you can't really do that because
despite all your protests, Linux facinates you.
Why else would you spend all your spare time
trolling on the linux advocacy newsgroup?
jjs
Donn Miller
<flatfi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:v1le8t0sglt1ifits...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Feb 2001 01:51:45 GMT, nos...@ripco.com (Bloody Viking) wrote:
> 1. The programs "I" need to use don't exist on the Linux platform
Actually, some of my favorite apps to use during the small amount of time
I'm running Windows ME are:
* Cygwin, which includes a port of bash, just like Linux uses. Granted, the
Cygwin port is sluggish, but still way better than that ultra-thin joke MS
calles "command.com".
* Vim.
* gcc
* XEmacs
So, yes, the free software that is available on Linux is still my choice
even on Windows, although commerical alternatives exist.
Also, a lot of the software for Windows is a little too watered-down in
their quest to appeal to the lowest common denominator of computer user. I
call it "brain-softening" software.
> 2. There are plenty of free/shareware programs for Windows that are
> far better than the Linux counterparts.
Nah, you probably are just ignorant of how much great free software is
available for Linux. I'd use a lot of that software on Windows, too.
> Programs that are not stuck eternally in some 1.0-x version number.
Microsoft has been known to ship software before all the bugs were worked
out just to make a deadline. Also, MS has been known to "pump up" version
numbers to make their software look better than their competitors. Example:
MS Word jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 on the Windows platform just to make Word
look more advanced than Word Perfect, which was in version 5.0 while Word
was still in v. 2.0b. Verdict:: the quality of the software, not the
version number, is what's most important.
Ray Chason
>But.. but.. All you linux people said that there is no reason to recompile
>your kernels, so why would this knowledge be "common" and "one of the first
>things you learn" if you don't need to ever do it?
Some reasons you might wish to recompile your kernel:
* to set its processor optimization for your specific CPU;
* to remove unneeded drivers, or spin them off as modules;
* to reinstate such drivers after a previous recompile, should they
again become necessary;
* to upgrade to a new kernel version, or apply a patch.
Any others?
Karel Jansens
>
>
> Microsoft has been known to ship software before all the bugs were worked
> out just to make a deadline. Also, MS has been known to "pump up" version
> numbers to make their software look better than their competitors. Example:
> MS Word jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 on the Windows platform just to make Word
> look more advanced than Word Perfect, which was in version 5.0 while Word
> was still in v. 2.0b. Verdict:: the quality of the software, not the
> version number, is what's most important.
>
Yes, and this was what first made me wary about the quality of
Microsoft software; I mean, a company that thinks that upping the
version number is a serious marketing move? But what is even more
scary: Apparently quite a large number of people actually bought Word
6.0 _because_ of that higher-than-WordPerfect (and AmiPro) number! And
they allow these people to use a computer!! What am I saying, they
allow these people out on the street!!!
Deepak Chandrashekar
Everyone knows that Windowzblowz is complete crap
when it comes to robustness and uptime !!
So if is for such apps. then go get Linux/Unix or something.
Else, if u want to use some "kiddie" application such as MS-Word
then .......
---------------------------->>>>>
I dont want to pay M$ Tax
<<<<<---------------------------
Deepak
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com
>Donn Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>> Microsoft has been known to ship software before all the bugs were worked
>> out just to make a deadline. Also, MS has been known to "pump up" version
>> numbers to make their software look better than their competitors. Example:
>> MS Word jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 on the Windows platform just to make Word
>> look more advanced than Word Perfect, which was in version 5.0 while Word
>> was still in v. 2.0b. Verdict:: the quality of the software, not the
>> version number, is what's most important.
>>
>
>Yes, and this was what first made me wary about the quality of
>Microsoft software; I mean, a company that thinks that upping the
>version number is a serious marketing move? But what is even more
>scary: Apparently quite a large number of people actually bought Word
>6.0 _because_ of that higher-than-WordPerfect (and AmiPro) number! And
>they allow these people to use a computer!! What am I saying, they
>allow these people out on the street!!!
>
Just like NT version 1.0, marketed as 3.1.
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com
Ray Chason <johnn...@southland.smart.net.SPAMMEN.VERBOTEN> wrote:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>But.. but.. All you linux people said that there is no reason to recompile
>>your kernels, so why would this knowledge be "common" and "one of the first
>>things you learn" if you don't need to ever do it?
>
>Some reasons you might wish to recompile your kernel:
>
> * to set its processor optimization for your specific CPU;
> * to remove unneeded drivers, or spin them off as modules;
> * to reinstate such drivers after a previous recompile, should they
> again become necessary;
> * to upgrade to a new kernel version, or apply a patch.
>
>Any others?
>
things that everybody *must* do.
Lots of people run stock distro kernels and only upgrade from a
newer CD every couple of years.
Others run the original kernel because it does the job and is not
placed where security matters.
I have a friend in that condition with his 386/SX which does network
printing for a bunch of Windows boxes and has for years. He did not
even know that the monitor had burned out till they were rearranging
the servers recently.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting