Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ? - Mandriva

This is a discussion on Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ? - Mandriva ; Aragorn wrote: > On Friday 24 October 2008 19:51, someone identifying as *Christopher > Hunter* wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/ > >> Aragorn wrote: >> >>> Just goes to show how good the Microsoft developers really are, when >>> they explicitly require ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ?

  1. Re: Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ?

    Aragorn wrote:

    > On Friday 24 October 2008 19:51, someone identifying as *Christopher
    > Hunter* wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
    >
    >> Aragorn wrote:
    >>
    >>> Just goes to show how good the Microsoft developers really are, when
    >>> they explicitly require the inclusion of two obsolete registers in a
    >>> CPU design that works perfectly well without them if used with
    >>> non-Microsoft operating systems, rather than to modify their kernel
    >>> code.

    >>
    >> ;-) The "Vista" kernel is the one "written" by Cutler in 1991 - it's
    >> /still/ broken!

    >
    > Well, it /was/ written by Dave Cutler... for VMS. He simply
    > copy/pasted it, and he was caught redhanded at DEC while doing so, which
    > resulted in DEC filing a lawsuit against Microsoft, but this was later
    > on dropped as Microsoft settled the matter out of court and promised to
    > support DEC's Alpha processor in Windows NT. ;-)


    It was pointed out in comp.os.vms at the time that the best tutorial guide
    available for writing NT device drivers was the VAX/VMS driver manual.
    All of the data structures had different names but the concepts were
    identical.
    --
    Dave

  2. Re: Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ?

    On Saturday 25 October 2008 18:08, someone identifying as *Christopher
    Hunter* wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> Vista already broke compatibility with a lot of stuff, including
    >> hardware, and imposed very high hardware requirements, which - or so I've
    >> heard - will be no different for the Windows 7.

    >
    > The hardware requirements will be /even/ /more/ ridiculous (if that was
    > ever possible).


    Well, they may have a way around that - albeit a clumsy one, though. A
    few days ago, I read on Slashdot about a joint effort between Microsoft and
    Intel - and I believe Cray may be involved in this as well - to produce a
    ~25'000 US Dollar supercomputer with up to 8 nodes - a single node being a
    processor socket with a memory controller (possibly on-chip), together with
    according to what I've read up to 64 GB of memory - and using Intel
    processors. Allegedly it's compatible with GNU/Linux, but inside virtual
    machines, as the thing will be running - yes, of course - Windows HPC
    Edition.

    Well, my own "supercomputer" has two nodes - with dualcore Opteron
    processors - 32 GB of memory and it has cost me about 16'000 Euro to get it
    built - that's about 20'000 US Dollar at current exchange rates. And I am
    not going to allow any version of Windows anywhere near it.

    >> It's all part of the manipulation strategy, driving the customer towards
    >> the purchase of faster hardware - which can then be labeled "ready for
    >> Windows 7" again, and which might even - with Intel's help - be
    >> constructed in such a way that you can't get around DRM and/or a
    >> Microsoft OS.

    >
    > Intel wouldn't be /that/ stupid. It was already proposed ("Palladium")
    > some while ago, and was shown to be an entirely stupid idea. Even M$ now
    > admit that DRM is a disaster and unenforceable!


    I think the Palladium initiative is still alive - I'm not sure really. But
    either way, whenever Microsoft says that one of their ideas is or was
    stupid, then they don't really mean that. Then what they really do mean is
    "We don't think it's stupid at all, but the way we've been going about it
    so far hasn't been profitable enough yet."



    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  3. Re: Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ?

    Nanard wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I plan to buy a new PC. A Laptop would be better (I need to do some
    > demo, presentation to customers).
    >
    > I want to use Linux (Mandriva ?) on it.
    > The reasons I want it pre-installed :
    > - I don't want to reformat, pay for Windows (& loose all licences I
    > have paid )
    > - I want to be sure all special hardware are working fine with the
    > installeld 64 bits Linux distribution : memory card reader, embedded
    > webcam, all drivers...
    >
    > Do you know any store (online), or better : 'real' store (in France)
    > where I can find such products ?


    http://linpc.us/

  4. Re: Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ?

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:34:33 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

    > Well, my own "supercomputer" has two nodes - with dualcore Opteron
    > processors - 32 GB of memory and it has cost me about 16'000 Euro to get
    > it built - that's about 20'000 US Dollar at current exchange rates. And
    > I am not going to allow any version of Windows anywhere near it.


    Wow! May we ask what use you have for such an expensive computer?

    If you have very demanding needs this may be of interest to you.
    http://helmer.sfe.se/

  5. Re: Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ?

    Nanard wrote:
    > I don't have any problem with W$ tax. It is 'resonable'. I have more
    > problems with already installed garbadge like Norton, and other
    > useless app...


    I have problems with anything that is installed on a system that I don't
    want, but have to pay for. And I really don't call their prices
    reasonable either! I especially hate the extra software goodies that are
    absolute useless or are trialware or work for 30 or so days. Most of
    that should be called crapware as that is what it really is.



  6. Re: Laptop with pre-installed Mandriva ?

    On Sunday 26 October 2008 01:55, someone identifying as *Iordani* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:34:33 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> Well, my own "supercomputer" has two nodes - with dualcore Opteron
    >> processors - 32 GB of memory and it has cost me about 16'000 Euro to get
    >> it built - that's about 20'000 US Dollar at current exchange rates. And
    >> I am not going to allow any version of Windows anywhere near it.

    >
    > Wow! May we ask what use you have for such an expensive computer?


    Well, it's intended for use with the Xen hypervisor and several Gentoo
    installations, one of which will be a dedicated workstation virtual machine
    with its own dedicated graphics adapter and with full access to the
    soundcard. Another one is the privileged virtual machine - /dom0/ in
    Xen-speak; it handles all I/O that hasn't been specifically assigned to
    another virtual machine - and two more virtual machines will be dedicated
    headless server installations, running an IRC server in one and a webserver
    (and possibly a mailserver) in the other one. ;-)

    Part of why the machine was so expensive is the RAM. It's ECC registered.
    The other reason is the PCIe SAS RAID adapter with 4 SAS disks in RAID
    5. ;-)

    Compiling and building a kernel takes about 50 seconds on that beast. ;-)
    (The fastest I've heard of so far is 8 seconds on an IBM S/390. ;-))

    > If you have very demanding needs this may be of interest to you.
    > http://helmer.sfe.se/


    Pretty cool set-up, though, although a cluster is exactly the opposite
    of what I'm trying to accomplish with this particular machine. :-)

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2