idisjunction

Member
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About idisjunction

  • Birthday 07/30/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Yahoo
    inconclusive_conjunction
  1. Are you sure you're installing the correct driver? There appear to have been four different revisions.
  2. Wrong. You can install programs any **** place you want them. The reason that they are ALWAYS placed in a certain place is so that other programs will ALWAYS know where to look for them. Same as what happens when a program looks for, say, GDI32.dll. If it isn't in a specified directory, or in the same directory as the program, it won't be able to find it. Nothing stops me from installing Firefox in /boot except the fact that that is a stupid place for it. You are making a fundamental mistake here, which I will address in a moment. There is NOTHING that stops me from creating a folder in that location. mkdir /boot/Apps. mkdir /boot/setup I called C:\ similar to /boot because it contains files analogous to autoexec.bat, command.com, etc... are located. And that's where you make your mistake. "/" is not "C:". C: is a partition. /, and all folders "in" it, are actually representations of where to look for files in a partition-independent manner. I can have /home on one partition, and /usr on another, and /bin on another, and /boot on another. "/" needn't exist at all, except for a place to copy the kernel after booting. I believe even that is completely optional. If you want to make a folder there, put a folder there. Nothing, except root permissions, stops you. Some distributions will even allow you to have root permissions off the bat, should you really insist. And it does. Launch the program already. Whatever partitions have to with drivers for different operating system... No, it makes for an easy recovery should you screw something up. It sounds like you are well on your way there, anyway. I can and have used other OS's while using a separate /home directory. In fact, it makes it even easier. A /home partition of it's own can be used by several Linux distributions. Should you choose to format it as FAT32, it makes it much easier to share files between Windows and Linux. Translation: I'm willing to use Linux, but not if I might have to spend 20 minutes learning something new, because I'm stubborn. No, the nice little package manager doesn't allow that. You can configure most programs to run and store their files anywhere you want. I did that testing Seamonkey, since Ubuntu doesn't offer it in their package manger. The package manager's job is to make sure you have the necessary libraries installed for your programs, such as So let me get this straight: you want each program in it's own folder on the C: drive, but you can't tolerate the same chaos in your home directory. Um... Oxymoron? No. Notice the quotation marks? That is because they aren't really "accounts." They don't have their own files, and unless the daemon that is controlling them is running, they draw no resources or do anything. Besides, that each individual file has a user associated with it, well, that's a huge foot-print right there. Even if "root" is your [i]only[/i] use, it's still there. That's one hell of a foot-print, you must admit. No. Because files have absolutely no footprint at all on system performance unless they are being accessed. Even when they are being accessed, they are only attributes, just like "hidden" or "archive." I'll accept giving certain specific folders special permissions, ones saved in a separate file (e.g. System.dat in Windows), but per-file permissions as part of the file-system? Can you say "overkill"? And what, exactly, is the difference in performance between a permissions system that checks "Is this a system file? No? Then he can touch it." vs, a system that says "Is this a root file? No? Then he can touch it"? Not that these actually give better security, mind you, usually they create more holes than they plug, with all the workarounds they end up requiring. So an insecure system is better than one where you have to put forward just a tiny bit more effort for assured security?" Yes it can. If you want, a minimal kernel can easily be installed. USB, graphics, etc... can all be excluded from a kernel and loaded as modules at boot time as needed. The fact of the matter is, Linux has no "Safe mode". It either loads the entire kernel with all attached modules and services, or it loads nothing at all. There's no gray area in between. If you happen to have the wrong module installed, or the wrong component plugged in, the whole kernel will come crashing down, even if "X" isn't loaded. There is nothing that stops you from having a kernel with almost no drivers compiled into it and selectively loading modules in an interactive startup. Normally, Wine requires two months to configure. To run a single program, that is. Once that's done, all you need to do is type in a 300-characters command-line to get it started. Or write a really long shell script. Again, for one silly little program. No it doesn't. Almost every program I have ever used in Wine either worked without any configuration, or didn't work at all. All I had to do was double-click on the program's icon. A very few programs need a different Windows version specified. That's no different than what many people have to do to run programs under compatibility mode in Windows XP, or patch other things in Windows 98. Alternately, I could run Windows, use WinRAR to unpack the binary into a folder of my choosing (under the root, [i]not[/i] stuck in some "home" sub-folder forced upon me by the OS), then open Explorer, and go click the exe. WinRAR works beautifully under Wine. Linux isn't so comfortable even with its own native programs, let alone with ones meant for another OS. Only times installing and running something in Linux didn't require hours of messing with package managers, compilers, and general headache-makers, was when they were actually Java programs. Not that installing the latest VM was that easy. Is this an truly an issue of it not working, or just that you had no idea what you were doing? "sudo apt-get install program" is hardly a difficult process. Not to mention it is probably a lot faster than installing the Windows equivalent. Incidentally, it took me 5 second to get Windows to run JArs on a click as well, more than I can say about Linux. After you downloaded the Java installer and installed it. Downloading and installing Java took me far less time in Linux. Even if you put all of that aside, Wine still can't run the vast majority of my programs. I'm not talking multi-threaded debuggers here, just normal text editors, FTP programs, and the occasional DirectX game. It just doesn't work. It is still a decade too soon to be actively used. List them. Again, I place a high value on "it working". Linux DOS emulation is slightly better than its Windows emulation. The emphasis being on slightly. Quite frankly, until recently DosBox was also insufficient, but since a couple of versions ago it has proven to have all the compatibility I require. Then why bring it up, if it's not an issue. One could challenge that "equal or better" claim. Then again, one could mention games or specialty software - two classes where you can't claim an equivalent in Linux. Again, a large number of games CAN be run using Wine. And I would bet there is far more specialty software for Linux than Windows. Plus, how much "specialty" software do most people run? It either has a port, or doesn't, and more often it doesn't. But one would be better off mentioning how little the term "out-of-the-box" applies to Linux. That's your opinion. Let me tell you of the time I installed Linux and Windows for my little brother on a computer. I installed Windows first.Then I installed Linux. Then I used Linux to download all the drivers that Windows XP didn't bundle, but Linux supported "out-of-the-box." My experience with Ubuntu tells me Linux programs are either "bundled" or "too much of an effort to bother". That's probably why it can't be installed (in an intuitive manner, at least) without OpenOffice, even if I seriously don't want it. Sort of reminiscent of Windows and IE. And that's Ubuntu. Ubuntu is designed to include what the vast majority of people want. Other installers do allow you to pick and choose which software you want installed. Well, I've yet to find a Windows or Linux equivalent to Ripper5. Not that "games" isn't a sufficiently adequate reason. There are plenty of DVD rippers for both platforms. The fact that you desperately cling to one is an artificial limitation, not a practical one. Linux does not hide any hardware information. You just don't know where to look. Macs have every single "problems" you have listed, and then some. File system structure, where programs are installed, etc... Opinion. Again, that's your opinion. There are also many non-technical users who easily switched. My brother is a non-techy, and he installed Ubuntu all by himself. In fact, he was the one who got ME to switch. The first is questionable, unless you're not talking about specific games, in which case it's not exactly a correct argument. How many does it take? 5? 100? 1000? Saying you can't play games on Linux is like saying you can't play games on a Wii, because Final Fantasy VII won't run on it. You make a general statement, and point out very specific examples as to why it's not true. As for the rest, so can my cell-phone. Or an XBox360. I'm not gonna throw away my computer to use those instead though. Since when does Linux count as "throwing out your computer?" The majority of people using their computer for just e-mails and surfing can just as easily switch to a cell-phone and not look back. Given that, the real reason to have a PC is the variety of programs - the ability to download, install, and run, any number of specialty or unique or lesser known programs. Unlike their cartridge and CD based siblings, PCs have the freedom of running whatever, not just what large companies made. The ones that use the PC for this, they are the ones who truly need it, and should truly care how it runs. [code] Linux actually has a far greater number of "specialty' programs, as I mentioned earlier. And I know of several programs where the variety (or at least free variety) programs do not exist: audio workstations. There are far more programs for that than for Linux. [code] Linux, despite being on the good side of the FSF, actually makes it quite difficult to use whatever is not available from the package manager. As mentioned in various "Linux will always be a niche" articles, making a program "compatible with Linux" is near-impossible at best, and ill-defined at worst. The FSF has nothing to do with either ease of use or the availability of programs. By and large, the programs that are not in the repository are either A. In another repository. Medibuntu, for instance, exists because Ubuntu legally can't bundle some programs due to copyright restrictions. Adding these repositories is rather easy. B. Alpha / beta software. You probably don't want it unless you're a developer, in which case you are assumed to be competent enough to install something. C. Non-existent. By contrast, Windows makes it very difficult to install something because it is either A. Shareware B. Infested with Spyware. C. Doesn't exist -An OS must run the programs of [i]my[/i] choosing. If I have happened to choose Windows programs thus far, then that's what my OS must run. I agree that you should be allowed to choose what software you want to run. However, I also think that you should be allowed to know alternatives exist, instead of perpetuating FUD. -An OS must have minimal foot-print. It should not proliferate my drive. It should not take over my system. It is merely a bridge between me and my programs, and just as I would not allow a program to place random files everywhere, nor would I allow the OS to dictate the structure of my harddrive. Linux has A. a minimal footprint in many cases. Although I'm sure Windows 95 fits into 3 MB of RAM and Linux does not, performance on 9x does not scale well, so an outdated machine of, say, 64 to 128 MB will perform just as well in most cases with Linux as with 9x. Plus Linux can easily utilize much more memory and partitions than 9x could ever hope to accomplish. The lack of overhead is negated by the fact that it can't do anything with the free resources. B. A flexible file structure. Your insistence that you are forced into /, /bin, /usr, etc... is completely flawed. Those aren't limitations of Linux, but rather an agreed standard. Why can't I install Windows on my Ɣ:\> drive?
  3. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I'm not for operating system advocacy, I'm against operating system idiocy.I point the false information people have picked up on operating systems, and correct them. I don't give a s*** if if you use Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, DOS, BeOS, etc... I simply care about whether or not you know WHY you use them. It annoys me when people give reasons that are A.) wrong "You can't play games on Linux" B.) irrelevant "Linux users are mean", or C.) subjective " Linux is too hard to learn how to use" If you read my reply to the OP above, you would see that I actually gave some reasons why people use 9x still, and some reasons why they simply couldn't switch to Linux. Somehow, I doubt that. And you haven't actually explained WHY it isn't. Can a user play games on Linux? Yes. Can they surf the internet on Linux? Yes. Can it run on my old computer? Probably, yes. Can I listen listen to music on Linux? Yes. So what is it, exactly, that makes Linux not an alternative to 9x, for at least some people? It isn't as though Linux doesn't have suitable replacements for most programs that everyday people use. And it is a correct assumption. Most people do NOT spend their entire time on a computer playing games. Even if someone older than 12 likes to play games occasionally (I do, and I'm 19), they would not be so immature as to make the decision to switch or not on that basis alone. How often does your mother fire up a copy of Halo 2 on her computer? A double fallacy. First of all, Windows is not "emulated" to play games or run Windows programs. Wine catches calls from the program to Windows APIs, and translates them to Linux ones. The programs run much as they do on Windows, only instead of a Win32 subsystem on an NT kernel, they have a Wine subsystem on a Linux kernel. The average program runs as fast on Linux as it does on Windows. You might as well say that running Windows will never be as good as running Windows. Wine myth #1 Secondly, even if you understood the first part, you assume that Wine can't have good compatibility. While it is true that Wine will have to evolve as Windows evolves, it doesn't necessarily have to fall behind. How many games use DirectX 10, for instance? Wine may well implement enough of DirectX 10 before it becomes a major issue, especially with the public backlash against Vista. It has nothing to do with me thinking that Windows is so bad as that I don't think that Windows is so good that Linux can't beat it. The arguments you made for keeping Windows are bad ones, mainly because they highlight what Windows does poorly. Try suggesting a reason that involves something that Windows does well. I have wasted no one's time, except perhaps the time it takes to scroll past my post. No one has to read my post. I've probably spent far more time posting a coherent response to your anti-zealot post then you did to call me a "fanboy." If I can post an intelligent response to your complaints about Linux, and you can only answer with "You're a fanboy!", then I wonder who the REAL flamer is.
  4. Before I move on, what are you dual-booting with? XP or Vista? Then your complaints are unfounded, as they are even more "limited" than Linux. Windows (any version) lacks freedom because they require partitions. In fact, any operating system you install to a hard drive lacks the freedom not to use a partition. Windows (all versions as far back as Windows 95, at least) lack freedom as they hide files. Hidden files can be shown in both Windows and Linux. Windows (all versions of NT, including 2000, XP, and Vista) lack freedom because they require a password to access a user's protected files. Linux is actually better in that it doesn't let you peek at other user's files without their permission. Windows will let you access them unless they are explicitly protected. Then you obviously are NOT the root. Try sudo su echo 1 > /dev/ram0 and then tell me you don't have the ability to wreck your system at will (Seriously, do it from a LiveCD only). Correct. So stop insisting that it should be. Realize that that is what makes Linux unique. It doesn't have Window's problems. Because games are everything to people over 12. Wine probably has almost as good compatibility with games as Windows 98, and allow you to use much more powerful video cards while you are at it. Correct. Invade other's privacy and f*** up your system. There are lots of OS that will do that. That's your choice, but don't make up things about Linux to justify it. And I probably just wasted a quarter of mine.
  5. The average person doesn't need to actually look in "C:\Windows", just for their Paint to work. C:\Program Files is further divided into folders for each individual folder, plus often some other ones for the program itself (C:\Program Files\StupidRPG\Maps\World 1). In Linux, all user executables are placed into one folder, with rare exceptions. /usr/bin. Libraries used for user programs are put into /usr/lib. Some programs do divide that up further, like Firefox, for instance. The kernel and ramdisk are put in /boot. The "system" programs are put in /bin. So let's compare: C:\ /boot C:\Windows /bin C:\Windows\System32 /lib C:\Program Files\StupidRPG /usr/bin C:\Program Files\StupidRPG\Maps\World1\1.map /usr/lib/StupidRPG/Maps/World1/1.map So, with the possible exception of where the user program stores it's stuff, how is Windows arranged any better than Linux? To me, it actually looks like far fewer clicks to get to the same stuff. And it would be a lot easier switching between them on your beloved command line. I can't see what difference this actually makes. If it means that much to you, put your /home/username on a seperate partition. Think of one partition as "C:\Windows" and your /home/username as "C:\", if it bothers you that much. Also, "your" stuff is at /home/username. Not hard to remember at all. I have one "user" on my computer. Me. I can assume the rights of a superuser at will. All other "accounts" are nothing more than daemons that have far fewer rights than I do. What the hell are you talking about? Linux can start up just fine, without ever loading "X." That's exactly what Wine allows you to do. See above And DOSEmu, and BHole, and ... A lot of distros do come with Wine, or make it easily available. Same with DOSEmu. I highly dispute the idea that Linux is a "toy" because it can't run Windows programs out-of-the-box, even though there are plenty of equal or better software for Linux. And for what reason do you need DOS compatibility, other than games?
  6. If claims were code and mouths were compilers, this thread would have already created what you are looking for out of sheer verbosity. No it's not. Look more closely. It requires several files from Windows 3.1. That's no different than jaclaz's minimal Windows. Go snoop around the OS Dev Wiki and find something that resembles an actual free kernel, instead of someone's 15-year-old rescue disk. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. Blue screens are far more often the fault of buffer overflows and segmentation faults that the operating system is simply not equipped to deal with. It isn't just drivers that can cause a crash, it's almost any DLL that a program can call. Of course it depends on Windows. All other command lines depend on a kernel behind it. CMD.EXE isn't a DOS emulator. It is a true command line, as pure 32-bit applications can be run from it, just like on Linux, Solaris, OS X, etc... How would you quantify the recovery console on a Windows CD, if it doesn't require the GUI to start up? I think your complaint is that it doesn't have enough DOS compatibility for you, not it's actually usefulness for scripts or commands. It also runs in QEMU. Except that none of them work. All of them create some sort of "user-unfriendliness." One of the biggest problems people have with Vista is it's "User Account Control" that demands people approve almost every single action a program takes. Like what? iptables aren't switched off when you log in as root. Programs that you haven't previously installed can't install themselves. The only "hole" is the one in the idiotic user's head. How hard is it to create an executable that silently installs itself and modifies system files in 9x? At least if the user was prompted for a password, he'll have enough time to think and say "Hey, wait! Text documents don't need to install anything! And if you think that can be fixed by just having a box pop up that says "Ok" and "cancel", then let me tell you that most users just click "Ok" for everything automatically. If they associate passwords with installing programs, though, there will be far less risk (except from trojan horses, but there are other ways of dealing with those). Different programs and users can be given different rights. And how is Windows any different? Most Linux distributions will warn right off the bat never to log in as root. Windows actively encourages it by making the default user an Administrator, instead of giving him a normal account and have him specify a separate system password. And no, a multi-user system does NOT create enough of a performance overhead that can't be fixed by efficient coding. There were multi-user systems long before the average individual could afford their own computers. Name ONE operating system that was developed in the way you describe. All free operating systems in existence have been developed primarily by starting with a kernel and developing the APIs around it. You really think Wine wrote one DLL to its entirety, then moved on to another? No. They started with several of them, and worked on all of them to get even one application working. No you can't. The different DLLs are entertwined. They rely on each other. Different versions of DLLs even from Microsoft cause problems when used together. No it doesn't. The code necessary to make a free and open source DLL work well with a proprietary one is a lot more than is necessary to have a working program. Wine's DLLs are good enough to run a vast majority of programs, yet they can't be used as drop-in replacements.
  7. Hi, darrelljon, I seem to keep bumping into you, either on Yahoo! Answers or the Linux wiki on Wikia. We must frequent the same circles a lot. I think the reasons for people using Windows 95/98/ME are as varied as Linux distributions. I might as well ask you why you use Puppy Linux and not something fancier, like Kubuntu. Is it because you like that instant snappiness of running a "light" desktop environment on modern hardware? That's why some try to run 9x on modern hardware. Do you have an older computer that can't handle a more featurful distro? Many people with 9x can't afford new computers. I know I couldn't, when I used 9x regularly (about a year and a half ago). My computer didn't have a CD burner; I had to use dialup to access the internet, my computer had a whopping 32 MB of RAM, etc... Linux was a completely alien concept to me then. Sure, it's easy now to download a new distribution, burn it to a CD, and boot it, when you've got a broadband connection, a fast (enough) computer, and a CD burner. Luxuries to me just a couple of years ago. Don't you find it ironic that the people who "need" Linux most are those unable to obtain it? Linux is an attractive option, ironically, when you are rich. Not when you use dialup (and a Winmodem at that).
  8. No. Cygwin does not actually HAVE drivers in the traditional sense. Cygwin's job is to translate Unix (not even explicitly Linux) system calls to Win32 calls. It does not interact with hardware directly. It's sort of like asking if I can use Wine to install Windows drivers on Linux.
  9. What part of the design, exactly, implies instability? Starting up in a console? Try telling that to any linux distribution. More like the separation of user-mode and kernel-mode code. A crash of a program can easily bring down the system, which very seldom happens on NT systems. Usually the problem in that case is a bad driver trying to do something. Where did you get the idea I didn't like the command line? If anything, that implies more stability and power than anything else to me. I've seldom ever seen something crash at the command line. NT has one, albeit it is not an initial interface, nor can you kill the and return to the command line. Most people in the later days of 9x weren't playing DOS games on it anyway. Why do you think they disabled it in ME? A goal more likely attainable with ReactOS. It had a command line for the kernel before it had a GUI. 90% of the problems people have with security on their computers is that they think just like you. If people had to log out and log in as an Administrator, or at least enter a password every time they had to install something, they would think twice before installing something. The security of Linux, Mac OS X, etc... is built around this very simple fact. Not that there is anything to stop you from running as an Administrator on XP, root on Linux, etc... But I think it is good to have the distinction available. Well, you could have just tried it. ReactOS is focused on building a GUI (what is Windows without it?), but it does have a command interface. File system:FAT16 / FAT32; development on NTFS and ext3 in progress. And yes, it uses your archaic drive obfuscation, instead of much more sensible device nodes. User:Currently it is single-user only. Of course, that is going to change, for reasons I cited above. Boot process: Same as Windows. Older versions were limited to a console; I'm sure someone will port an X server to it and forgo the traditional Windows method. Of course it isn't. But it is a lot farther along than this "project" will be in any reasonable amount of time. As far as compatibility goes, even Microsoft can't guarantee that, and neither could this "project" of patchwork's. A point I and others have already made. But the makers of ReactOS set out long ago to clone Windows 95, and came to the same conclusion: it just isn't worth it.
  10. No they didn't. The "problem" with Debian was not including Firefox or running it on their system, but Debian's stringent (some would say draconian) requirements about software being free. The name "Firefox" cannot be used if the source code is modified significantly; Swiftfox is an example of this. Hence, Iceweasel, Debian's version, was simply compiled with different graphics and name. Debian's version isn't even really modifed; they just didn't like the idea that you couldn't See the pages on trademarks and community edition branding.
  11. Wouldn't it be easier to just download the drivers from their support site? All hardware that Windows 98 doesn't include drivers for should have drivers on the site.
  12. The "stability" issues are fact of design. It cannot be fixed without a complete overhaul of the system. At which point, it would most likely more resemble NT than 9x.You might as well go for ReactOS at that point. Besides, the "system" files he and I were referring to are non-critical bundled apps like Notepad or Solitaire (I refer to anything in the "Windows" folder as a system file). We've already found that there are no simple drop ins for anything at a lower level.
  13. Sadly, that is most likely the case, especially if you didn't make sure you had the right firmware. Have you tried physically disconnecting it from a power source and reconnecting it? On the bright side, a replacement burner isn't too expensive.
  14. Windows detects IRQ 7 because that is what the card actually runs at. The driver for DOS emulates a Sound Blaster at IRQ 5. Thats why there was a discrepancy. I don't know why the sound isn't playing properly. I had a similar problem when exiting from Windows into DOS: sound would play, but it would be just random noise. I think Windows may be doing a TSR that is interfering. If you can, see if you can start DOS without launching Windows first.
  15. I said that it was a pci card in my first post. Sorry, I missed that. This driver should work, if I am not mistaken: Driver - Site doesn't allow hotlinking. More info can be found here: http://easymamecab.mameworld.net/html/snddosdr.htm