Message from Peter 3D TT Dobrovka

[Mike Wagstaff]

Josef wrote:

[Major snipping for sanity's sake!]

although I wonder if the open-source software model is
viable in the longer term given the capitalist society in
which we live. If Linux is a success, people are going to
want to start making money out of it. But, for the moment,
it's out of the hands of big business and the "money men",
and in the hands of the real enthusiasts - it's nice to see
that.

Many people have spent many hours pondering exactly the same question. I
think that it can survive, and that people can make money from it even
so. Just look at Redhat. They have huge sales and lots of profit, even
though anybody is free to copy their Linux distribution. I think what
people will make most money with in the future will be general support
and convenience, which is what you pay distributors for right now.

Call me cynical, but where one of the main ways of making
profit is through support, I foresee a situation where Linux
developers might be "encouraged" not to make the OS as
user-friendly and reliable as it might be. But that could
surely never happen...?

If I was running a simulation that would take 8 hours to
complete, I wouldn't let it near Windows 95/98!!! I reckon
that NT(/Win2K) could be trusted. Also, I'd be more than
happy to use pure DOS. But 8-hour simulations are not a
frequent occurrence on my todo list, I'm happy to say! This
isn't an 8-hour TT session you're referring to, is it...?!


No, it was for the research work, and they were quite frequent a few
weeks ago. Now I'll just be writing up my thesis, on Linux of course

Somehow, I get the idea that you wouldn't appreciate being
made to use MS Office!

By the way, could you please leave the attributions at the top of your
replies, so that readers know whom you are replying to?

Sorry about that. I'm using a DOS-based newsreader on a
palmtop, which doesn't seem to be capable of automatically
generating the attributions like OE et al.! I'll try and
remember not to be lazy, and type them in manually!

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Mike Wagstaff]

In <199632852409920NEWS...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Mike Wagstaff
a...@dial.pipex.com> wrote...
Same sort of experience here as well. For me, I see more and
more people switching back to WinNT after having tried out
Linux (often for quite a while). I often wonder how well
Linux would be received if most of the computing press
didn't hate Microsoft so much. For me, much as I support the
idea of an open-source OS, Linux is a massive step backwards,
especially when we should be concentrating on making
computers more user-friendly.

To which Dan Ros replied:

Why is it that you think everyone should use the same OS?

I'm a naive idealist! I don't see why the same OS
shouldn't be used by everyone, as long as it's fully
customisable.

Having a standard OS is helpful in too many ways to list.
Examples include hardware drivers and compatability,
efficient data sharing, connectivity and much, much more...

Linux isnt for beginners, it's for people who know what they're doing
and like experimenting.

I agree completely. It's not yet anywhere near being ready for
the general market.

However, once it's properly configured, it can be made just as user
friendly as any OS. I know of a mobile phone manufacturer who is using
linux in their new line of internet enabled phones, and I know of at
least one car radio that makes use of it.

Interesting. Who is the mobile phone manufacturer (Nokia?
Ericsson? Motorola?), and what's the phone? Sounds
intriguing...

Talking of mobile phones, does anyone know when the new
high-speed services (eg, GPRS) are going to be introduced in
the UK? (Sorry for the sudden topic shift!)

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Mike Wagstaff]

Bill Hayles wrote:

I understand that Windows 2000 will not have a command line option of
any sort, and for me this is a step backwards.

Win2K still has the command line, but not to the extent that
Win 95/98 has. There's no equivalent to Win 95/98's straight
"DOS mode" (ie, the "Restart in MS-DOS mode" option), but
you can still call up a command prompt (aka DOS box).

Unfortunately, the DOS prompt in Win2K isn't quite as
backwards-compatible as the Win 95/98 offering. This is
because Win2K is NT-based and doesn't have an underlying
16-bit DOS heritage. The good news is that it means that
Win2K is far more stable than 95/98; the bad news is that DOS
TT(DLX) won't work...

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Eddie Bernard]

Dan Ros <upl...@happynoweddie-ductape.net> wrote in message

Well I keep getting handed pieces of paper at college. No idea what they
expect me to do with the things, they just accumulate on my desk, often
invading my mouse's personal rolling space.

After the exams I got all my exam papers back. The teachers told us to store
them somewhere safe. And I have. They were safely stored in the recycle bin,
so now some other person can enjoy reading my exams. Either that, or they
are strewn across my locker. My locker is a mess. I think I'll tidy it
tommorow. I hate having the bottom locker. I'm tall, and I have to go all
the way down, and meanwhile someone in my class, a very small person has a
top locker. The bas***d is refusing to swap lockers. Grrrrrr....

Eddie
-- Personal Site: http://www.ebernard.greatxscape.net
-- Transport Tycoon World: http://www.ttworld.cjb.net

[Eddie Bernard]

Christie Lewis <christiele...@worldmailer.com> wrote

No, it's antique!

An excellent excuse....

Eddie

[Paul Wright]

SADDO!!!! hahahhaa, i did mine two am, sunday/monday morning

--
____________________________________________________________________

Paul Wright
ICQ UIN: 38986089
E-Mail: Ask me for it
___________________________________________________________________

Eddie Bernard <e...@ttworld.the-whale.com> wrote in message
news:85tg5p$drs$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
: Paul Wright <ask...@for.it> wrote
: > i do my homework on it (paper), which i must get round to doing.
:
: Hehehe! I did mine on Friday as soon as a came home from school.
:
: Eddie
: -- Personal Site: http://www.ebernard.greatxscape.net
: -- Transport Tycoon World: http://www.ttworld.cjb.net
:
:
:

[Rick McGreal]

Bill Hayles <bill...@ctv.es> wrote in message
news:os138sgulqf5rtj1o2n85b244p29vuirtp@4ax.com...

Yup. That's about my time scale, too. The first version of DOS I ever
installed was 2.11

Could you get an earlier version?

For many years, I ran a large public Fidonet BBS (The Cray BBS for
anybody who's interested) under OS/2.

Hmm....Kneptune BBS.........I still have my Point No. 2:250/108.5

I have NO idea why I can remember that.....B-/

--
Rick
--
tri...@transport-tycoon.co.uk
http://www.transport-tycoon.co.uk

[Chris Becke]

"Rick McGreal" wrote:

Bill Hayles <bill...@ctv.es> wrote in message
news:os138sgulqf5rtj1o2n85b244p29vuirtp@4ax.com...
Yup. That's about my time scale, too. The first version of DOS I ever
installed was 2.11

Could you get an earlier version?

I have a 8" floppy disk labled pc-dos 1.25
It doesn't (didn't) support any sort of harddisk - floppy only dos.

Chris
--

[Bill Hayles]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:22:49 -0000, "Rick McGreal"
<tri...@transport-tycoon.co.uk> wrote:

Bill Hayles <bill...@ctv.es> wrote in message
news:os138sgulqf5rtj1o2n85b244p29vuirtp@4ax.com...
Yup. That's about my time scale, too. The first version of DOS I ever
installed was 2.11

Could you get an earlier version?

I don't know. It was the first PC I bought, and I knew nothing about
them at the time. Later, just for fun, I bought an original IBM PC,
with the ROM Basic and all that, which had PC-DOS 1 installed.

Hmm....Kneptune BBS.........I still have my Point No. 2:250/108.5

I have NO idea why I can remember that.....B-/

I was 2:254/211, 2:254/212 and 2:254/213 (three phone lines - three
nodes!)


From Benitachell, Alicante, Spain
Bill Hayles
bill...@ctv.es

[Mark Kelly]

Bill Hayles wrote:

I'm not especially worried about security - the only ones likely to have
access to my machine are my wife and the dog.

Hope it's not a beagle. Can't trust beagles.

--
Mark Kelly m...@nylon.net
http://www.nylon.net Victoria, Australia


-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

[Graham Cox]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:39:10 +0100, "Peter J. Dobrovka"
<dobro...@t-online.de> Gave forth this really invaluable piece of
information:

[Linux not user-friendly]

One good example for being nasty without reason is this "mounting" of
directories. The directory structure of Linux is completely different from
DOS, you have no A:, B:, C:, D:, your have a root directory (normally '/')
and you access the drives over the '/dev/'-subdirectory. so the floppy is to
be found in '/dev/fda', the first harddisk in '/dev/hda1'. Some drives have
to be "mounted" before you can use them. This is a command that assigns a
root directory to the drive.
Example: mounting the CD-ROM:
mount -t iso9660 /directoryname

If you set /etc/fstab up properly then you can do the came as
mount /cdrom
and then your cdrom is in /cdrom

Then you can access the CD by /directoryname
But not nasty enough: the mount command does not create a virtual
directory - you have to create a directory first to mount your drive into!

That is so that you don't mount it in the wrong place by accident. If
you wanted your cdrom mounted in /mnt/cdrom and typed in /nmt/cdrom by
accident you get an entirely new subdirectory tree building up that
you know nothing about.

Even still not nasty enough: after mounting you cannot open the drive to
change the CD, you have to unmount first! And of course mount again if you
want to read the new CD.

Have you ever removed a CD from windows when it's in use, even by
accident. The least you get is a nice blue screen warning you. If it
was doing something vital then you can risk corruption or worse. In
Linux this is impossible. Much safer.
--
Graham Cox
c...@grahama99.freeserve.co.uk.antispam
Remove antispam, you get the idea
ICQ# 24532124

If this e-mail address is used in any manner that does not have
my personal authorization then I will be writing to the relavent
authorities with enough complaints to get you in serious trouble.

Sorry the sig is too long

[Graham Cox]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:34:34 +0000, Mike Wagstaff
<a...@dial.pipex.com> Gave forth this really invaluable piece of
information:

It might be more stable but I don't like it. IMO Linux is no operating
system but an OS-construction kit. Very nice for freaks, unuseable for
normal people.

It's nice to hear a programmer say that! I study Computer
Science and, at my university, all the computers dual-boot
into either NT/Linux depending on your choice. Most of the
students and teaching staff rave about Linux as the dominant
OS of the future - hah!

It is. Microsoft do too much to do anything well. Windows is good, but
so full of bugs that it is hard to use. Linux is not only mostly bug
free, but if you know C and find a bug then you can fix it yourself.

If the developers who made excellent work on the technical side would have
put only a bit more into the shell then Linux probably would have much more
users than it has today.

Exactly. From what I can make of it, it's klunky, amateurish
and generally horrible when compared to Windows. Also, you
really need to know how to use the Linux command-line for a
lot of tasks - how 80's, how wonderful... Overall, I found it
about as user-friendly as a cageful of starving tigers.

Try mixing XFree86, using something like KDE or Gnome, with shell
scripts. I have my linux box set up so I log on and it loads Gnome
automatically. I can then double click on an icon on the desktop and
it loads Free Agent. Sound familier?

I am an old DOS user since 1986. Whenever I say Linux is unneccesarily
overcomplicated and should have been designed differently I always get the
answer that I do say this only because I am used to DOS and Windows. But in
the institute I am currently learning medical informatics there were people
who did not know anything about computers. I watched them learning and I saw
them becoming familiar with DOS much quicker than with Linux.

Linux is different to DOS. To learn linux properly you need to be able
to use a computer. To use DOS properly you need to be able to type in
a couple of commands. Linux is harder to learn because there is so
much more to learn.

--
Graham Cox
c...@grahama99.freeserve.co.uk.antispam
Remove antispam, you get the idea
ICQ# 24532124

If this e-mail address is used in any manner that does not have
my personal authorization then I will be writing to the relavent
authorities with enough complaints to get you in serious trouble.

Sorry the sig is too long

[Graham Cox]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:38:46 GMT, jdrex...@julian.uwo.canada (Josef
Drexler) Gave forth this really invaluable piece of information:

Which will be a good thing. Nobody should be forced to use a
command prompt unless they actually want to. A command
prompt invariably forces you to learn commands (or at least
consult the manual or reference docs), while a GUI
doesn't... or shouldn't, at any rate!

Yes, for most users the command prompt wouldn't be very intuitive. For
me personally, however, it is much faster to type than to click, so I
usually prefer the command prompt to do many things.

I totally agree. Linux gives the ability to have the window manager
running, and drop to a shell with the full power of the shell easily.
Typing is much faster than getting the mouse to work, and if you can
load a shell with the full power of linux behind it very quickly then
you don't need to do anything else. In windows a DOS shell is greatly
restricted, as you can not do certain things with the knowledge that
you can come straight back to windows. Also, once you have learnt what
to do the command prompt is much easier to use. In a GUI you have to
be able to cope with several programs using the screen together, and
never knowing where anything will be. In a command line you can see
where you are from a single line.
--
Graham Cox
c...@grahama99.freeserve.co.uk.antispam
Remove antispam, you get the idea
ICQ# 24532124

If this e-mail address is used in any manner that does not have
my personal authorization then I will be writing to the relavent
authorities with enough complaints to get you in serious trouble.

Sorry the sig is too long

[Graham Cox]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 02:35:21 +0000, Mike Wagstaff
<a...@dial.pipex.com> Gave forth this really invaluable piece of
information:

Why is it that you think everyone should use the same OS?

I'm a naive idealist! I don't see why the same OS
shouldn't be used by everyone, as long as it's fully
customisable.
One reason straight off. Think virii. The internet worm of 1986(I

think that's right) didn't wipe the entire internet out because of the
wide varity of OS's and computers. A single virus will only ever be
able to attack a single OS on a single type of computer. You can NOT
run UNIX software, of any kind, on DOS, or DOS Software on VMS, and so
on. It is a safety measure for one thing.

Having a standard OS is helpful in too many ways to list.
Examples include hardware drivers and compatability,
efficient data sharing, connectivity and much, much more...

Drivers are a pain. MS introduced the idea of drivers, and now you
need the latest drivers for anything to work. Also, if the driver
isn't perfect then the device doesn't work. In linux you get a kernel
with all the drivers built in. You need to know the settings, because
lets face it, PnP doesn't work, and that's it. If you tell linux you
have a sound card on port 220, and you don't then there is no harm
done, just no sound either. However, if you say that, and then install
it then it will work straight away, with no hassle.

Linux isnt for beginners, it's for people who know what they're doing
and like experimenting.

Very true. But you can also say that about other things. You shouldn't
really do anything unless you know what your doing. Would you let
someone drive a car on the road without lessons? People do the same
thing every day on computers. People buy a computer, turn it on and
use it straight away. They know nothing about what they are doing, and
then when things go wrong they don't know how to fix it.

--
Graham Cox
c...@grahama99.freeserve.co.uk.antispam
Remove antispam, you get the idea
ICQ# 24532124

If this e-mail address is used in any manner that does not have
my personal authorization then I will be writing to the relavent
authorities with enough complaints to get you in serious trouble.

Sorry the sig is too long

[Graham Cox]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:01:46 +0000, Mike Wagstaff
<a...@dial.pipex.com> Gave forth this really invaluable piece of
information:

Bill Hayles wrote:
I understand that Windows 2000 will not have a command line option of
any sort, and for me this is a step backwards.

Win2K still has the command line, but not to the extent that
Win 95/98 has. There's no equivalent to Win 95/98's straight
"DOS mode" (ie, the "Restart in MS-DOS mode" option), but
you can still call up a command prompt (aka DOS box).

A DOS box isn't DOS. You can't do several things in a DOS box that you
can in pure dos, and In windows it will be a shame to see DOS go. It
really is the best part of the whole system. The idea of building DOS,
then building Windows on top of dos so that it is really a GUI
extension of the same thing is a good idea. Ripping DOS out from this
just won't work as well.

--
Graham Cox
c...@grahama99.freeserve.co.uk.antispam
Remove antispam, you get the idea
ICQ# 24532124

If this e-mail address is used in any manner that does not have
my personal authorization then I will be writing to the relavent
authorities with enough complaints to get you in serious trouble.

Sorry the sig is too long

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

Graham Cox schrieb in Nachricht <3885e378.1481...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...

[defending the Linux mounting principles]

Yeah, if I modify this and that I can make it easier.

And if I modify the sources and recompile everything I can make everything
even more easy.

The easiest is of course to write a whole new OS?

And you are right of course: the best way to prevent a problem is to block
the situation that causes the problem. Why bother to handle random CD
opening if you can lock the CD? It is completely not understandable why this
superior technology does not apply to my audio CD player, TV, and video.

Linux has the better and more stable technology than Windows but its
handling is a nightmare for beginners and still an annoyance for normal
users. It is an OS construction kit for programmers. If you get used to it
you learn to accept the way it goes. It is easy to defend the principles
AFTER you have set up config files properly and customized your system. You
all have forgotten already how complicated it is for beginners. You all are
blinded for the problems of the little people and therefore you see no
reason to change the situation. But the little people have the big money.
This is the reason why Linux has not conquered the market yet although it is
better and cheaper. It is even for free, if you compile it yourself. Isn't
it strange why people do not grasp this chance? Isn't it strange that not
everybody on this planet is a programmer since programming is so fun and
easy?

This will be a long and hard way, meanwhile MS can earn some additional
billions for its expensive and completely ill-born systems.

Howgh.

Peter
--
Die 3. Dimension der Strategiespiele:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x

[Mike Wagstaff]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:23:03 GMT, cox_@_grahama99_._freeserve_._co_._uk (Graham Cox) wrote:

Have you ever removed a CD from windows when it's in use, even by
accident. The least you get is a nice blue screen warning you. If it
was doing something vital then you can risk corruption or worse. In
Linux this is impossible. Much safer.

I don't think that the blue screen warning happens on newer
PC's. For instance, I've used one that pops up a regular
dialog box (asking if you want to cancel or really eject the
CD) - not a blue screen in sight.

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Mike Wagstaff]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:23:11 GMT, cox_@_grahama99_._freeserve_._co_._uk (Graham Cox) wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:34:34 +0000, Mike Wagstaff
a...@dial.pipex.com> Gave forth this really invaluable piece of
information:

It's nice to hear a programmer say that! I study Computer
Science and, at my university, all the computers dual-boot
into either NT/Linux depending on your choice. Most of the
students and teaching staff rave about Linux as the dominant
OS of the future - hah!

It is. Microsoft do too much to do anything well. Windows is good, but
so full of bugs that it is hard to use. Linux is not only mostly bug
free, but if you know C and find a bug then you can fix it yourself.

Yes, Windows (all versions) are buggy behemoths compared to
Linux. Yes, it is nice that you could theoretically fix any
bugs in Linux yourself... assuming you had the tools, the
programming skills and the inclination! But I appreciate that
it's an aspect that is liked by programmers.

Exactly. From what I can make of it, it's klunky, amateurish
and generally horrible when compared to Windows. Also, you
really need to know how to use the Linux command-line for a
lot of tasks - how 80's, how wonderful... Overall, I found it
about as user-friendly as a cageful of starving tigers.

Try mixing XFree86, using something like KDE or Gnome, with shell
scripts. I have my linux box set up so I log on and it loads Gnome
automatically. I can then double click on an icon on the desktop and
it loads Free Agent. Sound familier?

My university uses Gnome, I believe. For the most part,
loading applications is nothing more complicated than
pointing and clicking. However, I don't like it - compared to
Windows, it's plain nasty. And if you want to do any serious
file/directory management, you have to use the command line.

Another point: "Linux is faster than Windows". Maybe this is
just me, but I find it to be a complete myth! On PII-266's,
Linux and Windows are roughly equal in the speed stakes.

I am an old DOS user since 1986. Whenever I say Linux is unneccesarily
overcomplicated and should have been designed differently I always get the
answer that I do say this only because I am used to DOS and Windows. But in
the institute I am currently learning medical informatics there were people
who did not know anything about computers. I watched them learning and I saw
them becoming familiar with DOS much quicker than with Linux.

Linux is different to DOS. To learn linux properly you need to be able
to use a computer. To use DOS properly you need to be able to type in
a couple of commands. Linux is harder to learn because there is so
much more to learn.

Which is why I don't believe that Linux is ever going to
dominate the PC world as Windows currently does. The fact is
that the vast majority of PC users are not PC experts, nor
do they wish to become so. (It was Peter, I think, who put
it so nicely, Linux is not for normal people!) Any potential
Windows replacement must be an OS which adapts to the user,
rather than forcing them to adapt to it.

If, however, you believe that Linux is a niche OS, suitable
for programmers and techies, I'm not arguing. What I don't
like is that much of the computing media discuss it as The OS
of the Future, come to save us from the evil forces of
Microsoft. The truth is, however, that it's completely
unsuitable as a potential Windows replacement.

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Mike Wagstaff]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:23:35 GMT, cox_@_grahama99_._freeserve_._co_._uk (Graham Cox) wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 02:35:21 +0000, Mike Wagstaff
a...@dial.pipex.com> Gave forth this really invaluable piece of
information:

Why is it that you think everyone should use the same OS?

I'm a naive idealist! I don't see why the same OS
shouldn't be used by everyone, as long as it's fully
customisable.
One reason straight off. Think virii. The internet worm of 1986(I
think that's right) didn't wipe the entire internet out because of the
wide varity of OS's and computers. A single virus will only ever be
able to attack a single OS on a single type of computer. You can NOT
run UNIX software, of any kind, on DOS, or DOS Software on VMS, and so
on. It is a safety measure for one thing.

That's a poor excuse in my book. Are we really in the chains
of the virus-writers?

Viruses exploit security weaknesses usually caused by sloppy
coding (anyone mention MS?) - in other words, the vast
majority can be avoided. One obvious requirement of an OS
which aimed to be ubiquitous should be an extremely high
level of security.

Of course, you're never going to be able to fully eliminate
every single potential security weakness in something as
complex as an OS. That's where virus checkers come in -
viruses that can not only avoid detection by a virus checker
but also spread to a dangerous degree are virtually
non-existent. What would be dangerous is if there was only
one make of virus checker...

Having a standard OS is helpful in too many ways to list.
Examples include hardware drivers and compatability,
efficient data sharing, connectivity and much, much more...

Drivers are a pain. MS introduced the idea of drivers, and now you
need the latest drivers for anything to work. Also, if the driver
isn't perfect then the device doesn't work. In linux you get a kernel
with all the drivers built in. You need to know the settings, because
lets face it, PnP doesn't work, and that's it. If you tell linux you
have a sound card on port 220, and you don't then there is no harm
done, just no sound either. However, if you say that, and then install
it then it will work straight away, with no hassle.

"PnP doesn't work"? If every fledgling technology had been
dismissed just as easily, we'd still be in the stone age!
If, hypothetically speaking, PnP *did* work (it's my
hypothetical OS, after all!), do you think that it would be
a better option than having to manually edit the settings? I
think so.

Linux isnt for beginners, it's for people who know what they're doing
and like experimenting.

Very true. But you can also say that about other things. You shouldn't
really do anything unless you know what your doing. Would you let
someone drive a car on the road without lessons? People do the same
thing every day on computers. People buy a computer, turn it on and
use it straight away. They know nothing about what they are doing, and
then when things go wrong they don't know how to fix it.

Yes, but when things go wrong with your car, unless you're a
mechanic, you don't fix it yourself - you take it to a
garage. The sorry truth is that if computers were cars, then
they would be a ten year-old Skoda with a dodgy motor, a
clapped-out gearbox and heavily punctured tyres. In other
words, computers have the nasty habit of going wrong at the
drop of a hat - often, through no fault of the user.

This is where I believe that computers must be improved.
After all, what use would cars be if only mechanics could
drive them? How can we expect computers to be truly useful if
you need to be an expert just to master the OS? Do we want
the power of computers to be restricted to just an elite few,
or to be available to everyone?

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Chris Becke]

"Graham Cox" wrote:

One reason straight off. Think virii. The internet worm of 1986(I
think that's right) didn't wipe the entire internet out because of the
wide varity of OS's and computers. A single virus will only ever be
able to attack a single OS on a single type of computer. You can NOT
run UNIX software, of any kind, on DOS, or DOS Software on VMS, and so
on. It is a safety measure for one thing.

That has to be the most stupid excuse I've ever heard.

Drivers are a pain. MS introduced the idea of drivers, and now you
need the latest drivers for anything to work. Also, if the driver
isn't perfect then the device doesn't work. In linux you get a kernel
with all the drivers built in.

So:

(a) Linux *does* in fact use drivers then?
(b) if those drivers are broken you are in exactly the same boat - the OS
doesn't work.
(c) So, Linux has drivers for the Matrox G400 Max built right in does it!?

You need to know the settings, because lets face it, PnP doesn't work,
and that's it.

Good grief. How exactly does PnP "not work". And were not talking legacy ISA
devices here. PCI and other modern bus architectures are PnP based.

If you tell linux you have a sound card on port 220, and you don't then
there is no harm done, just no sound either.

A PCI PnP sound card doesn't have a port address until it has been
enumerated by the PCI bus controller.

However, if you say that, and then install it then it will work straight
away, with no hassle.

In my system I have a Matrox G400 Max, a nVidia Riva TNT, a 3COM NIC, a SB
Live! Platinum. Previously there was a Voodoo 2 SLI.

PCI PnP means that on bootup the PnP driver enumerates the bus, and gets a
unique device id for each device. Then the OS looks in the driver database
and finds a driver that publishes itself as supporting devices with that
device id. That driver gets loaded - the driver connects to the PCI bus
enumerator and finds out what ports, irq's and memory ranges the PCI device
supports and then goes with those settings.

4 devices are all seamlessly have their drivers loaded with the exact
correct settings. If I remove a device it won't be enumerated by the PCI bus
controller and the driver will simply not load.

Have you any clue what a b**** that would be to set up manually!?

The other PnP compatible bus in my system is a USB controller. I get a
mouse, and plug it in. USB supports "hot" plugged devices, so the USB driver
gets informed that a device has been added. Once again the device publishes
a unique device id that is matched agaisnt a driver in the driver database.
The driver gets loaded and pointed to the device. If I unplug the mouse -
its driver gets unloaded. instantly. with no error messages, or any action
required by the user.

I'm sorry, but PnP works, and works great.

If you are stuck using legacy ISA devices - well I'm sorry for you. It is,
however just as easy to install the drivers and set the resources manually
on windows as it is on Linux.


Chris.
--
VisualC++ & Win32 FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/vcfaq
My Win32 Page: http://users.lia.net/chris/win32