Problems installing FC4 on Dell Optiplex GX620

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 23:12 -0500, Myth User wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Craig White" <craigwhite at azapple.com>
> To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Problems installing FC4 on Dell Optiplex GX620
> 
> 
> > Les is certainly capable of engaging a debate with anyone on an
> > incredibly diverse set of subjects and I suspect you just entered one,
> > but I will say this.
> >
> > The two posts that you have made on the subject suggest that you have an
> > incredibly narrow focus in your expectations. Whether Linux presently
> > supports some/all SATA drives and controllers and to which degree it
> > presently supports it is of interest to all Linux users but whether
> > Windows does the same better/worse is hardly the issue for Linux users.
> >
> > Windows is entirely proprietary source and thus you use by your
> > acceptance of a EULA that conveys to you an incredibly limited set of
> > rights and imbues Microsoft with your consent to their rights on your
> > system, data files that you store or access with your system for which
> > you pay a privilege fee which is neither transferable nor durable.
> >
> > A Linux system on the other hand has an end user license which empowers
> > you and gives you all rights and really only restricts what you must do
> > if you decide to redistribute Linux or it's various parts/pieces.
> >
> > If you look at things from the perspective of end user licenses...you
> > should be asking Windows users why they bother endlessly purchasing and
> > repurchasing the same software to which they obtain no ownership
> > whatsoever and could conceivably be denied access to the documents
> > (their own work product). That to me is far more encompassing of an
> > issue than whether XYZ brand SATA RAID controller works with Fedora.
> >
> > Some hardware manufacturers hurry to put their 'drivers' out for the
> > Windows platform because it represents a larger pool of potential sales
> > for them while Linux gradually accumulates the details to create the
> > device drivers, with or without manufacturers assistance with varying
> > levels of success.
> >
> > SATA drives are supported to some extent by FC-4 - there are controllers
> > - such as the fake RAID controllers that are suggested to be hardware
> > RAID controllers but really are software RAID controllers with drivers
> > installed into Windows and yes, some have Linux drivers too, but in
> > reality, those fake RAID devices and drivers don't perform better and
> > would leave you hanging if the motherboard or expansion card died since
> > you would have to locate identical hardware to make them functional
> > again whereas if you used software RAID, you wouldn't have a problem
> > moving the drive array to another SATA motherboard/controller.
> >
> > The issue of SATA on Fedora really isn't about SATA as it is about the
> > controllers that people are trying to use and the RAID implementations
> > that they are trying to use.
> >
> > If you purchase some of the quality brand SATA controllers, you are
> > likely to find that they work perfectly well with Fedora and other Linux
> > distributions. If you are talking about budget minded, often motherboard
> > embedded cheap SATA implementations, Windows is the right place to
> > start.
> >
> > Things are not always as they appear.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> 
> The mention of RAID was in the context of Adaptec SCSI RAID which is a real
> hardware RAID solution.  Some may argue that while Adaptec clearly makes the
> best SCSI Controllers they make the worst RAID controllers that have ever
> reached the market.  None-the-less, Adaptec's RAID controller in our
> discussion is SCSI not SATA.  But your discourse on SATA RAID was
> entertaining.  For a production environment software RAID is unacceptable as
> it requires at the very least system down time to replace failed drives.
> 
> As for operating systems, in general, no one buys an OS to simply have an
> OS.  People buy an OS so they can run applications.  There are a handful of
> studies which take the TCO of Linux and compare it favorably to MS.  There
> are hundreds of studies which show MS has a lower TCO than Linux.
> 
> I use FC4 for an application that until recently did not exist in the
> windows world.  I use a Linux server as a development platform to ensure
> that code for certain projects works completely sans MS for certain clients.
> I use XP Pro as my development workstation because there is no Linux tool on
> the level of Visual Studio .Net or Dreamweaver 8.
> 
> You also failed to mention that with the price paid for MS products comes
> support.  Not just the support of a good natured (and highly skilled I must
> say) community as is the case with Linux.
> 
> It is not true to say "Windows XX is better than Linux XX" without some
> qualifications.  It is only possible to compare total solutions to total
> solutions for a particular problem at a particular point.  For example, what
> would be the point of comparing FC4 to DOS 2.1?
> 
> "Windows is entirely proprietary source " so is AIX, Solaris, Mac OS X, and
> Unix.
> 
> "incredibly limited set of rights "  Exactly what is the warranty on Linux?
> 
> "why they bother endlessly purchasing and repurchasing the same software"
> Are you talking about buying the exact same title over and over again or
> were you trying to say that because you once bought DOS 6 that you should be
> entitled to use Windows 2003 Data Center?
> 
> "privilege fee which is neither transferable nor durable." Exactly when does
> my license for XP Pro expire?  Where in the EULA does it say I cannot sell
> the software to some other entity?
> 
> The EULA for XP in section 4 clearly says that the end user may transfer the
> product to another workstation or sell it to another entity.
> 
> I never understand zealots in either the Microsoft or Linux camp that can
> not accept that both tools have their uses and proper places with a large
> degree of overlapping functionality and a lesser degree or functionality not
> present in the other tool.
> 
> I find myself unable to promote the use of Linux to Windows zealots nor the
> reverse.
> 
> I find that reasonable people and most all the people writing the checks to
> pay for solutions very open to hybrid solutions or single vendor solutions
> depending upon the situation.
----
there have been suggestions that 'some' of these TCO studies that favor
Microsoft were paid for by Microsoft and the criteria used was slanted
in their favor but there of course are always - it depends...curiously
though, the issue of TCO wasn't on the table at all and I'm not sure why
you want to move the discussion to tangential issues.

Now as for your EULA for XP in section 4...that is not what mine
says...I have the computer right here and I opened up the EULA...

the first 4 lines identify the eula.txt file of which I am referring...

"Microsoft Windows XP Professional,
Microsoft(r) Windows(r) XP Tablet PC Edition and
Microsoft(r) Windows(r) XP Media Center Edition
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT"

and section 4 in it's entirety...

4. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.  All title
   and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE
   (including but not limited to any images, photographs,
   animations, video, audio, music, text and "applets,"
   incorporated into the SOFTWARE), the accompanying printed
   materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE, are owned by
   MS or its suppliers (including Microsoft Corporation). 
   The SOFTWARE is licensed, not sold.  All title and
   intellectual property rights in and to the content that
   is not contained in the SOFTWARE, but which may be
   accessed through use of the SOFTWARE is the property of
   the respective content owner and may be protected by
   applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws
   and treaties.  Use of any on-line services which may be
   accessed through the SOFTWARE may be governed by the
   respective terms of use relating to such services.  If
   this SOFTWARE contains documentation that is provided
   only in electronic form, you may print one copy of such
   electronic documentation.  You may not copy the printed
   materials accompanying the SOFTWARE.  

in fact, nowhere in this entire eula can the word 'transfer' be found.

You must be referring to some other eula.

While I agree that a computer is a tool and tools need to be evaluated
for the purpose for which they serve and I am not anti-Windows as you
apparently believed, I respect the differences enough and appreciate
their respective abilities enough to recognize each of their strengths
and weaknesses.

SATA is still new technology, whose performance still falls far short of
high performance SCSI and whose primary value is a very cheap $ per
Gigabyte. The rush to market that you typically see on early releases of
drivers for Windows are fraught with problems but initial hardware
adoption is always going to be Windows as long as they are selling 90% +
of the desktop market. That apparently is shifting too if you haven't
noticed and you obviously are aware that the server market has entirely
different OS ratios.

Perhaps what I take issue with most vehemently is the attitude of
entitlement that users expect things to be perfect on Linux or Fedora
or ???  Even those that know things aren't perfect on Windows or Mac OS
X or anywhere. With Linux...it is your software - you own it. You can
view it, change it, inspect it, copy it, transfer it...do what you
please. If it isn't what you want it to be, you can either curse the
darkness or light a candle. With Windows or Mac OS X, you have no chance
of lighting a candle and all you can do is curse the darkness.

Craig