Linux-Advocacy Digest #241, Volume #31 Thu, 4 Jan 01 13:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs (count0)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (J Sloan)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: mail reader (Adam Fineman)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:59 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> Routine batch-processing jobs (like data collection and report generation)
>> is something that I can routinely accomplish with 15-120 minutes
>> of script programming, and then a mere couple of SECONDS to type
>> the command thereafter.
>>
>> Meanwhile, in LoseDOS land, the same task will continue to take
>> several HOURS of my time EVERY WEEK.
>
>Any script you can write in Unix can be written for Windows as well. I
>don't understand your point.
Its easier, faster, more reliable, more practical, more convenient, more
common, more effective, more efficient, more expedient, less
troublesome, lower maintenance, more durable, and less restrictive to do
it in Unix, regardless of whether it is theoretically "possible" in
Windows at all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:09:01 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:17:38
+0000;
>mlw wrote:
>
>> > In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API changes very often. Microsoft
>> > are adding new stuff to it quite rapidly (and not always wisely).
>>
>> The magical mystery APIs of fashion, are not progress despite what
>> Microsoft would like you to believe. Deliberate, well designed, APIs
>> added as needed are far better than the Microsoft hack'o mattic crap
>> that gets changed every service pack.
>
>I did say not always wisely.
But you did not say "predatorially", "badly", "monopolistically", "in an
effort to prevent development outside their control", "in complete
abeyance of consumer value", "despite the fact that it lowers the
quality of their product", or "regardless of how efficient it is." That
last is the telling blow; you were wise to avoid saying any of these
things, since it would have been counter to your previous comments.
Then again, its never to late to change your ways. Why not try to think
harder, and stop being a passive-aggressive troll of a Microsoft
apologist?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (count0)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:15:40 GMT
I think vi is the king, baby!!
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:40:57 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > NOTHING is intuitive....especially computers and software.
>> > >
>> >
>> > So, that means you should try to make it as convoluted as possible?
>>
>> Apparently that's what you and the authors of Xedit think.
>>
>
>You haven't listened to a word I said. It's the 3270 hardware, not
>xedit. If you want to blame the 3270 architecture, that's fine. But it
>was not xedit that caused the problem.
>
>Gary
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:16:05 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 15:39:18 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:57:13 GMT;
>>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Democrats were doing their best, at every turn, to break, manipulate,
>>>>and work around the law"
>>>
>>>Sounds like a good summary of what was happening in Florida.
>>
>>Another troll heard from. Look, buddy; if you want to join in on the
>>discussion, how about you review the last few days exchanges, consider
>>your opinion seriously, maybe do some research, come up with a decent
>>presentation, and then respond to our *positions* in a cogent and
>>reasonable reply to one of the summary comments that someone has posted.
>
>Hey, I'm just part of the audience, the jury, if you will.
Glad you could make it; you're not part of the jury, now, you're just
another part of the prosecution (persecution). Usenet doesn't really
have an audience; just lurkers, posters, and trolls.
>I've heard
>the arguments written here, and I've come to a personal conclusion. I
>think you're just upset that your opponents made a much better case
>than you did.
I think you've made a little fib, there, and came to your conclusions
based on partisan politics, not any arguments presented here. My
'opponents' didn't make any case; just a bunch of misguided declarations
and misconstructions of media presentations to interpret all events as
supporting their correctness. Its nothing more than wrapping yourself
in the flag, and mistaking unfalsifiable foot-stomping for reasoned
debate. The Democrats would have gotten no farther, as evidenced by Mr.
Jessie Jackson's rhetoric (though whether it has been examined and found
empty, or whether it has not been examined, remains unclear), had they
insisted on unilaterally declaring themselves the morally superior side.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:23:34 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
> >I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I simply
> >don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get annoyed when
> >Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows today. It can't. If
it
> >could, I'd be using it. Just like I used my Amiga over DOS, OS/2 over
> >Windows 3.1, and Windows 95 over OS/2, and Windows 2000 over Windows 9x
(I
> >still used Win98 primarily until Win2k came out. Although since then I
have
> >at least one NT4 box hanging around) when each proved themselves more
useful
> >to me.
>
> Well, we've all heard this before. "Linux just can't replace Windows;
> if it could, I'd be using it." I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that
> it does sound like a rather tired defensiveness, thinly veiling the...
> discomfort, shall we say, at the thought of Windows losing its...
> ubiquitous nature. Many of the Linux zealots, after all, have indeed
> replaced Windows, and go on to consider it a superior replacement.
> Granted, they lose out on the use of Win32, but to be honest, that's
> hardly debilitating functionally. Regardless, there are people who use
> Linux on their desktop PC, and they get along just fine. Now, I'm not
> one of those people, we all know, not yet, anyway.
Fine, Linux can't replace windows on the majority of users systems (yet).
Perhaps someday it can, but Microsoft isn't known for standing still.
Unlike all the competitors MS replaced, MS actively keeps enhancing most of
it's products. MS got to be #1 in all of it's markets due to it's
competitors incompentancy. I can say that easily because I also can see
competant competitors that don't let MS get a foothold, such as Intuit and
AOL.
> But the difference between you and I, Erik, is that I recognize the
> reason your self-referential "if it was better I'd use it, and I'm not
> using it, so its not better" claims to technical objectivity is an empty
> charade. You don't have a fair market to make your decisions on. All
> of those "I picked Amiga over DOS, until DOS was better" conveniently
> occur just before Amiga becomes "a niche product". You're a victim of
> the monopoly, same as I am, but you don't seem to be aware of it.
The Amiga died not because of competition, but because it's parent company
was incompetant. Time and time again they failed to even BOTHER to market
in the US other than in pro-Amiga magazines (preaching to the choir). They
also didn't bother enhancing their hardware, and failed to take advantage of
things like memory protection (something the MacOS didn't do either until
they began to port to PPC)
And, btw, I chose OS/2 over the Amiga, not DOS or Windows.
> The ironic part is that on some certain level, you *must* be aware of
> it, or else the thought of Linux being used and accepted by a great and
> growing number of people wouldn't prompt you to such contortions of
> unreason to try to prop up this delusion about Windows being reliable or
> efficient or effective or inexpensive or, well, acceptable, apart from
> the fact that through illegal acts, Microsoft has prevented competition
> either for Win32 or against Win32. These violations of the law are
> ongoing and continuous. You cannot refute the fact, hard as you try,
> that Microsoft's operating systems are more expensive than competitive
> levels, and are built by Microsoft, not to provide value to the
> consumer, but to exclude competition or the requirement to compete, as
> much as possible.
Windows is in fact a reliable, efficient and effective for me. I don't
claim inexpensive, but then again, it's awfully expensive to retrain lots of
people.
> >Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
not
> >going to be able to replace Windows. Yeah, there are tools like
linuxconf,
> >but I find these tools to be brittle and break easily. Case in point,
> >Mandrake's update utility (mandrake-update) will often insist that you
have
> >an older version of an RPM installed, when you have the latest installed.
> >If you do an rpm -q you find both the old version and the new version
listed
> >in the database, and mandrake-update gets confused.
> >
> >Until the management tools evolve, and distro's begin to generate
standards
> >between themselves (i.e. what filesystem hiearchy is used, how are the
init
> >scripts done, etc..) so that management tools can universally work on any
> >distro, it's going to be hard to see Linux take over.
>
> Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
> the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
> contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
> Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
> to gain value from their own property. I know it might sound really
> outlandish, but I can't for the life of me figure why anyone would be
> *so concerned* about something like how configuration is done. You seem
> to be trying to *insist* that consumers *could not* select a cheaper,
> more reliable, higher performance OS given the trade-off of needing to
> get used to text file configuration. (Those familiar with computers
> would be happy to point out that they will be more empowered in the long
> run, and will consider the mechanism to be as transparent, but far more
> effective and controllable, than the clicky-clicky method that Windows
> users are forced to hunt through like a rat in a maze, when they are
> unlucky enough to be unable to avoid it.)
What you labor under is the assumption that people *WANT* to learn about
computers. The vast majority of people who use computers don't want to know
how or why it works. They just want it to work. Each release of a MS OS
get's closer and closer to the ideal of the user not having to know much of
anything in order to install and use it and it's applications. Linux
distros, on the other hand take very small steps (if any at all).
Fact: People don't want to become computer literate. They use the computer
to do their job, and most of the time because they are forced to. A doctor
should not have to become a computer expert to maintain his patient records.
He's a doctor, not a computer scientist.
> Why don't you just shut up and let the market decide, eh, Erik? Quit
> proclaiming Windows is superior until active competition can prove the
> case.
Active competition won't occur until at the very least an equivelant OS
exists. Linux is not that OS (yet). The market *HAS* decided (for now)
that Linux is not yet acceptable for the vast majority of users.
> >By the way, I think you'll find that I primarily participate in
discussion
> >which FUD windows (which you seem to do quite regularly) rather than ones
> >that discuss Linux's problems.
>
> No, we gripe about Windows. That's not FUD; that's being stuck with
> monopoly crapware.
Stating things that are untrue is FUD, or lying. Take your pick.
> >I do participate in them, but not so often,
> >and then it's usually in reference to actual problems i've encountered
> >(which Linux zealots like to pretend don't exist).
>
> Kind of like you pretending Windows problems are all drivers and
> hardware and operator error, huh? Not that these "Linux zealots"
> actually exist.
You're claiming Linux zealots do not exist? What planet do you live on?
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:19:30 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
> > Windows most certainly can host multiple sites on the same server. It's just
> > that most commercial sites are a single site.
Most commercial sites running windows had better be
a single site - running multiple sites/functions on windows
is just not recommended in the "best practices".
> > Having done the same thing with Apache just now on my own site, I can tell
> > you quite clearly that configuring multiple sites is far easier under IIS.
> > Just open the properties for the site and fill in the hostname value.
> >
> > Under Apache it required adding about 8 lines to the httpd.conf file, which
> > took a bit of experimentation and searching to find what to add
You could edit the config file by hand, or use one of the GUI
configuration tools, take your pick.
> > (not to
> > mention restarting the httpd daemons after every change).
It takes all of 1 second to type "apachectl restart" from the command
line, or to click on "restart server" in one of the GUI config tools.
> > Total time in
> > Windows, 3 minutes. Total time in Linux, 2 hours.
That proves that you are a Linux newbie and a windows
expert - with me it would be the other way around.
>
>
> Now, just spend the next half hour writing a script to do it for you,
> then you can create and delete sites in whatever manner you choose.
> You needn't be using a Windows 2000 professional workstation either,
> or even running Windows at all, to remote-admin UNIX Apache.
>
> > > > IIS sites tend to be eCommerce and one site to a domain/location.
> > >
> > > Unix sites e.g amazon tend to be huge, fast and always on.
> >
> > Ahh yes, that's why ebay was down today for hours. The web servers were
> > working, but no auctions. Clearly their Sun box died again. They claimed
> > to have switched to a backup server, but it was somehow also effected by the
> > same failure.
Ebay is a windows site, right? the only thing that's "clear"
is that you refuse to beleive windows could have had anything
to do with the outage - quite amusing.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:26:40 GMT
* wrote:
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > > > > well stop asserting. easily 60% of the population uses their computers for
> > > > > 1 of 3 things: web browsing, game playing and entertainment, or multimedia
> > > > > development.
> > > >
> > > > >all 3 are things linux does worst.
> >
> > I don't know which wintroll wrote this, but it's classic ms
> > propaganda - "there is no desktop but windows"!
>
> actually. it says who writes what at the top of a message.
Nope, the top of the message does not carry any history,
only the given address of the poster, which tells you
nothing about content carried over from earlier postings.
> don't hurt yourself.
>
> > I switched from windoze to Linux because I prefer the
> > Linux environment over windows.
>
> fair enough
>
> > Linux rocks as a gaming platform, especially networked
> > games, and the growing number of games is encouraging.
>
> only if by 'rocks' you mean 'is gay'
Nope - I mean fast and stable, in contrast to the
fragile and buggy windows
> if you were a serious gamer why would you ever bother with linux when it doesn't
> have a fraction of the titles available for pc or even the hardware support?
Having a handful of good games on Linux is still preferable
to running more games in windows.
Not sure what you mean about hardware support, my hardware
is quite well supported.
> > I much prefer Linux/Netscape to the pc/ie web browser.
>
> i think it's fair to say you stand alone with this.
Well you are certainly allowed to think what you like.
> as netscape-linux is regarded
> as just about the most unstable offering of a mainstream browser on any platform.
> by pretty much everyone.
No, it's much more unstable on windows.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:31:35 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Windows most certainly can host multiple sites on the same server.
It's just
> > > that most commercial sites are a single site.
>
> Most commercial sites running windows had better be
> a single site - running multiple sites/functions on windows
> is just not recommended in the "best practices".
Nor is it discouraged. Which "best practices" are you referring to?
> > > Having done the same thing with Apache just now on my own site, I can
tell
> > > you quite clearly that configuring multiple sites is far easier under
IIS.
> > > Just open the properties for the site and fill in the hostname value.
> > >
> > > Under Apache it required adding about 8 lines to the httpd.conf file,
which
> > > took a bit of experimentation and searching to find what to add
>
> You could edit the config file by hand, or use one of the GUI
> configuration tools, take your pick.
The GUI configuration tools did not work properly because it did not add the
correct fields to the httpd.conf (namely the NameVirtualHost keyword). It
failed to do it's job.
> > > (not to
> > > mention restarting the httpd daemons after every change).
>
> It takes all of 1 second to type "apachectl restart" from the command
> line, or to click on "restart server" in one of the GUI config tools.
ahh yes.. restart server. Linux conf actually reboots my machine for some
reason when it restarts the server.
Interesting about apachectl. That is not the recommended way to restart
httpd, apache recommends issuing kill -HUP commands.
> > > Total time in
> > > Windows, 3 minutes. Total time in Linux, 2 hours.
>
> That proves that you are a Linux newbie and a windows
> expert - with me it would be the other way around.
I had no idea how to enable virtual hosts in Windows, it took me 3 minutes
to figure out how. I've been using Linux and FreeBSD for over 2 years, it
took 2 hours.
> > Now, just spend the next half hour writing a script to do it for you,
> > then you can create and delete sites in whatever manner you choose.
> > You needn't be using a Windows 2000 professional workstation either,
> > or even running Windows at all, to remote-admin UNIX Apache.
> >
> > > > > IIS sites tend to be eCommerce and one site to a domain/location.
> > > >
> > > > Unix sites e.g amazon tend to be huge, fast and always on.
> > >
> > > Ahh yes, that's why ebay was down today for hours. The web servers
were
> > > working, but no auctions. Clearly their Sun box died again. They
claimed
> > > to have switched to a backup server, but it was somehow also effected
by the
> > > same failure.
>
> Ebay is a windows site, right? the only thing that's "clear"
> is that you refuse to beleive windows could have had anything
> to do with the outage - quite amusing.
Ebay uses Windows for it's front-end web servers, but a Sun box for it's
backend. The web servers were working fine, the backend was not.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:34:20 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Windows 95 was a stopgap measure, designed to move users to Win32 based
> >applications. MS wanted people to move to NT as soon as possible, but it
st
> >ill took them another 5 years to start the migration in force.
>
> Ironically enough, MS could have had that accomplished within six
> months, at any time, simply by lowering the price of NT. They've been
> holding out for five years with the hope of raising the price of a
> Windows OS for the majority of the market from two to five times higher.
> Now, they say its going to be "Whistler", since obviously it wasn't W2K,
> or NT 4 before it.
Whistler will appear in a "personal" version that will cost the same as
Windows 9x/ME.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:31:52 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > A> An NT server would reboot automatically if BSOD and resume operation
> > > within minutes.
> > > B> If it doesn't, and you know *nothing* about NT, you turn to
> Google.com
> >
> > Well that's all well and good - but from what I hear, nt
> > gets itself into a state where it cannot boot again without
> > manual intervention.
>
> Where did you hear that? The only reason that would happen is if the drive
> crashed or there was some other hardare failure that prevented booting.
Or if the OS screwed up again - but of course you will deny
that possibility, won't you?
> Simply put, if it couldn't reboot without manual intervention, it couldn't
> boot in the first place without it. And that is most certainly not the
> case.
Yes, of course - all these stories about windows crashing
and not coming back up are part of a vast conspiracy, correct?
jjs
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:33:31 GMT
In article <9306l2$5sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92vf9q$4hs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <92vark$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:92tcpa$fg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <92t60a$cks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > > This way, the config file itself is the one who stores all
> > > > > > > the options. If a new version, with new options, comes out,
> > > > > > > the same tool, with absolutely no modifications, be able to
> > > > > > > handle it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And probably screw it to death. Really.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not likely, not if both file & application are built correctly.
> > > > > Why would it screw it?
> > > >
> > > > Because although it knows the options change, it has no idea of
> > > > HOW they change. For example, if optionA is now deprecated, and
> > > > those who set optionA to valueA should now set optionB to valueB,
> > > > it won't know, and it will (in Gus Grissom's words) screw the
> > > > pooch.
> > >
> > > The program doesn't need to remember the settings, it read them from
> > > the file.
> >
> > And the setting is still the old one.
>
> No, because when the program installed itself, it would either
> replace the file with a new, default one, or update the file format.
So, you have the choice of losing the configuration or hope there's
a converting tool.
> > > A new version will update the file, and should covert the old
> > > file format to the new format with more/less/updated options.
> >
> > No program ever comes with config file updaters.
>
> How hard would it be to write such a thing.
> Or be backward compatible?
If you just expect them to be backward compatible, you end as smb.conf,
with a bazillion options that work and are more or less the same.
And it can indeed be a terribly difficult thing to do.
[snip some]
> > The format is the same. The options are not.
>
> I know, so?
> It's the program's fault for keeping an old, no-longer-supported
> format, as its config file.
Who cares? The user is still left with a non-functional setup.
And this is really the easy part, still. What happens if you have
interdependent settings? For instance, What happens if a global
default setting changes the options available for others?
For example:
if A is "a", then B can be "1" or "2".
if A is "b", then B can be "3" or "4".
if A is "c", then B must be "5".
A simple example of this is fstab (if partition type is swap, no
mount point can be specified, if fs is proc, it should default to
/proc and so on)
Now, any ideas?
Really, embedding the logic of the GUI into the file itself only makes
the file harder to manage, and doesn't fix the problem.
Consider, example smb.conf that comes with SAMBA, compared to smb.conf
generated from scratch via SWAT.
The SAMBA one is long, and has most options in, commented.
the SWAT one is short and simply does what it must.
The SAMBA one is better if you intend to hack it without reading the
docs.
The SWAT one is better for almost any other thing.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Adam Fineman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail reader
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:48:01 -0500
Arthur Frain wrote:
> Adam Fineman wrote:
>
> > Thanks, everyone, for the responses. It looks like my best bet will be to use
> > fetchmail. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can best divide the
> > incoming mail into separate folders based upon which of my accounts to which
> > the mail was originally sent? I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear what
> > people generally do rather than reinvent the wheel.
>
> man procmail
> man procmailex
> man procmailrc
>
> Arthur
Thanks.
-- Adam
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:49:59 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > A> An NT server would reboot automatically if BSOD and resume
operation
> > > > within minutes.
> > > > B> If it doesn't, and you know *nothing* about NT, you turn to
> > Google.com
> > >
> > > Well that's all well and good - but from what I hear, nt
> > > gets itself into a state where it cannot boot again without
> > > manual intervention.
> >
> > Where did you hear that? The only reason that would happen is if the
drive
> > crashed or there was some other hardare failure that prevented booting.
>
> Or if the OS screwed up again - but of course you will deny
> that possibility, won't you?
>
> > Simply put, if it couldn't reboot without manual intervention, it
couldn't
> > boot in the first place without it. And that is most certainly not the
> > case.
>
> Yes, of course - all these stories about windows crashing
> and not coming back up are part of a vast conspiracy, correct?
Windows, not NT or 2000.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
