Linux-Advocacy Digest #966, Volume #34 Mon, 4 Jun 01 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Stephen Edwards)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Stephen Edwards)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Stephen Edwards)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Bill Todd")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Andrew Reilly)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Larry Elmore)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: Kernel comparisions (pip)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
(Bob Hauck)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is shit ("Paolo Ciambotti")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:44:15 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > But by and large, no. Unix apps are for Unix.
>
> But they CAN be ported to X86, PPC, Sparc and so on?
Unix apps can often be ported to various
different flavors of Unix, sometimes on different
CPUs.
This is true of Windows apps too. I do not call
this "portability"; it's too trivial.
[snip- URLS]
> Gee, thanks. Was that so damn hard to do? Did it tire you out or
> something?
I just felt that if you couldn't be bothered to give
me any URLs, I should be a hardass about it too.
But I'm just such a softy, I gave in anyway.
:D
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:46:17 GMT
Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Myers) wrote in
<3b1b97f5$0$94309$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9ffohb$krt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9ffgod$han$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > Actually, there was one thread I'm glad I didn't miss: it was a
>> > problem with gcc x-posted to comp.lang.c. Aaron got killfiled by all
>> > the regular posters on there.
>>
>> He post a stunning number of 49,800(!!!) posts.
>> I wish I had Deja's tracking, so I can tell which groups suffer the
>> most from him.
>>
>> Google hint that those are the groups that he visited the most:
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy
>> us.military.army
>> soc.singles.*
>> rec.aviation.military.*
>>
>> For comparison, I posted around 4400 posts.
>> And you didn't evern reach 2000 yet.
>
>Don't forget:
>alt.binaries.pictures.goat-sex.anal.d
Incorrect. I believe it was
alt.binaries.pictures.goats-on-fire.anal-sex.d
Remember, Aaron likes to torture small
animals (that is, when he isn't torturing
us).
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:49:31 +0100
>> >> > Yep, I'm glad I was killfiled by all the close-minded morons who
>> >> > refuse to admit that there are serious security issues with SSH =)
>> >>
>> >> What serious issues are there with SSH2?
>> >
>> > We weren't talking with SSH2, we were talking about SSH1 and why
>> > OpenSSH continues to ship the "flawed" SSH1 product.
>> >
>> > Get with the program before you start calling other people fools.
>>
>> Oh and by the way, why does MS ship telnet client and server, that's
>> far more flawed then SSH1, but they still ship it. Guess they must be a
>> real bunch of bozos.
>
> That's irrelevant at this point, especially since you guys continually
> claim MS has no concept of security. What I'm asking is, since OSS
> people generally consider themselves gods of security and that OSS is
> far superior, why do they ship a "flawed" product when they know it to
> be such?
Why do you keep putting flawed in quotes?
The only exploits are theoretical and require you to be on a LAN. The
only people who clam that SSH1 has a serious flaw are the people that
benefit financially if everyone adopts SSH2---hardly a reliable source of
information, then.
Besides, even if it was flawed (which it isn't seriously) they ship it
because people have backward compaitbility constraints. It also produces
a large, unignorable warning telling you that there is a potential
problem and you really should upgrade.
Ok, here's a question for you: why does your beloved MS who can do know
wrong ship products using far more flawed protocol, ie FTP and telnet?
If you answer my question, you probably answer your question too, so it
is not irellevant.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:51:26 GMT
Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their mouths
told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>> I'm sure the brits will have some concocted story about how
>> they REALLY invented the Internet first and Europe had had
>> the WWW years before the FTP rfc was even submitted.
>
>This is a really pathetic thread but FYI the brits helped with the
>crucial TCP bit of the IP layer. It was actually a joint effort. And as
>I am sure you already know the nationality of the person who invented
>the Web. But like the rest of this thread : IT DOES NOT MATTER. What
>matters is good ideas and the WHOLE world is full of them.
>
>The nationality of those who made past achievements is only interesting
>in a social studies class. Here we should talk about the world. After
>all, if the Internet has proved one thing is that the world can be a
>small place, and ideas can flow. Thanks EVERYONE for the Internet.
Still, one cannot deny that most of the best things
in life were created right here in the good ol' U.S.
Atomic Bomb
Stealth Fighter
Microsoft Windows
Ph34R! :-)
</HUMOR>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:51:59 GMT
Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their mouths
told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Patrick Ford wrote:
>> The rest of the world has been putting upwith your Seppo cultural
>> arrogance without a murmer for years. You don't like it when it's thrown
>> back at you as a joke do you? Squeal like a stuck pig don't you?
>
>Employment Note: "must not employ as a cultural embassy"
ROTFLMAO!@#
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:52:46 +0100
>> OK, well GPL spiel aside - may I ask why you think why the Linux kernel
>> is "completely" substandard ? In the interests of fairness I would like
>> you to compare 2.4.x V Win2k, so we are on the same ground.
>>
>> May make for a more interesting thread :)
>
> That's easy. No central distribution point of development
> (ala NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), and therefore, a severe
> variance in code quality.
Everything that ends up in the Linux kernel goes through the kernel
development team, that's as central as you get.
> This can be debated forever, however, so I suspect that discussing my
> own opinion on the matter would be pointless.
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:53:24 +0100
> Isn't it fun watching Aaron twist in ways that would confound a Yogi
> master instead of just admitting he was wrong?
>
> J
yep :-)
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:59:39 +0100
>>X has always had better fixed with fonts than windows :-) Shame about
>>the scalable fonts, tho.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. Fonts in X tend to look all jagged and hard on
> the eyes.
In my personal experience, the fixed width fonts are rather better on X.
Properly scaled fonts look fine on a decent moniter (which I have).
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:01:10 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:59:22 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:07:21 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>> (flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>What does Linux need for the desktop?
>>>>
>>>>Some users would be nice :)
>>>
>>> And a non-shit GUI. You need to go delving into configuration files
>>> just to stop it scrolling around everywhere when you move the mouse to
>>> the side of the screen.
>>
>>Look fool, quit complaining. You chose to use Debian which is a distro
>>for the hard core only. If you want a easier one, use RedHat. It even
>>has a control panel and a good tool for setting up printers and X.
>
> That would mean downloading another 100MB+ of files, which I am just not
> prepared to do.
Go by a CD then. Good software is well worth paying for.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:07:12 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>But when you bow, make sure you're _facing_ him. Don't want to bend
>>over with your back to him, after all. Might be more than he can
>>resist.
>
> I have a theory, and I'm sure I'm not alone, that the people who claim
> to be the most repelled by certain activities, are the people with inner
> conflicts regarding these same activities.
I believe it's a quite common theory: those that have an inner conflict
have most to fear.
--Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Bill Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:14:15 -0400
"cjt & trefoil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Have you ever actually tried to do that? It's not as easy as you seem to
think.
I've used both XCOPY and Partition Magic to replicate a (bootable) partition
onto a new disk on the *same* machine: it's easy with the former, and
completely painless with the latter.
I've booted vanilla (no special drivers) versions of Win9x with no problem
as well.
My belief is thus that if I took a copied partition to a new machine, it
would indeed boot as Stephen describes - albeit quite possibly in 'safe
mode'. For that matter, if I didn't want to continue using the old machine,
I could have just moved the disk to the new machine and booted from it
directly if I was happy to use the new machine's native (and usually
significantly larger) disk as a second disk rather than to boot from it.
At that point, I should be able to re-install my existing system onto
itself, and update the necessary drivers at that time: last I knew (though
a while ago now), MS's installations would do this without trashing the
other data on the disk - guess they figured they'd better, given how
frequently reinstallation seems to be required in some cases.
If you got a newer OS version with your new system it may get messier,
unless the Windows distribution included with your new machine will accept
being installed as an upgrade to the existing system it sees on the disk (my
somewhat out-of-date experience is that OEM distributions object to being
installed as upgrades rather than over themselves). If so, it should
happily incorporate all your existing Microsoft and other applications into
the new system transparently; if not, it's messy-move-everything time.
- bill
>
> Stephen Fuld wrote:
...
> > Actually, one of the few advantages of Windows comes from the size of
its
> > installed base that makes it worthwhile for lots of third parties to
come in
> > and sell software to remedy Microsoft's shortcommings. In the case you
are
> > talking about, there are programs from third party vendors that
essentially
> > "clone" the disk from one machine onto another, even taking account that
> > fact that you probably have a larger disk on the new machine. Since
many of
> > the peripherals are standard, you can get the machine to a bootable
state
> > fairly easily. You then have to get drivers for new "odd" things like a
> > different sound card, or the enhanced features of a graphics card, etc.
if
> > they are different from what you had. But if you have a "standard",
that is
> > not a Win Modem, your e-mail environment should move with no problems.
> >
> > --
> > - Stephen Fuld
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Reilly)
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:14:16 GMT
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:21:06 -0700, Maynard Handley wrote:
> (Obviously moving "pure data files" is easy. The fun starts in getting
> over the DLLs, preference files and such like. And even some "pure data
> files" are not trivial---would you know offhand what to do to move your
> email environment from one machine to the next?)
> (As for Linux, I have no first hand experience, but it wouldn't surprise
> me if the job is no simpler in that case. Even on the Mac it can be quite
> a pain.)
I don't use Linux myself, but as a Unix-like thing, I think it
would be fairly trivial.
I've been moving my home directory from machine to machine as I
changed Universities, departments, and (more recently) machines
at home since 1989. I know that, because I have files and
e-mail messages in my home directory that have timestamps from
then.
It really is as simple as tar'ing $HOME to an appropriate
removable medium, and untarring it over $HOME on the new box,
after you've created the appropriate user and group IDs.
Sure, you will probably spend some time after that installing
the various utility programs that you forgot that you use, but
even that can be trivial on most modern systems. ("sudo make
install" on FreeBSD, for example.)
See: $HOME contains all of the user's personal configuration
and preference files too. (dot-files are just files).
--
Andrew
------------------------------
From: Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:37:42 GMT
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> > mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> > install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> > a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car?
>
> AOOOGAH AOOOOGAH! BAD ANALOGY WARNING! BAD ANALOGY WARNING!
Only for the too literal-minded. What manufactered commodity item would
make a better analogy, and why?
Larry
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:36:35 GMT
In article <9fh5ka$mdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger) wrote:
> Woofbert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Butwhen I need to do something I don't often do, the Mac's command
> : menus let me hunt for the thing I want to do, and it's fairly
> : efficient: the menus are organized by what sorts of things they act
> : on and do. Complex commands have dialog boxes that let me set
> : command parameters. And the best part is I don'thave to know the
> : name of the command that does what I want.
>
> I actually raced someone. I read the manual and he hunted through
> random menus trying things, nothing was working. I found the right
> command in the index and read the description. I _like_ reading a
> paper manual. Much better use of a program, the reason why they have
> clasesses to learn word.
Bad example. They have classes to learn Word because it has a zillion
features no one uses, and the features people actually do use are hidden
deeply behind multiple nested menus and tabbed dialog boxes.
<snip>
> : long time. Once I've found the command, I have to read up on it and
> : learn all the options. (Mostly this consists of reading the options
> : and ignoring the ones I don't need.)
>
> These options you don't need will always be gumming up the screen.
Well, in Word and other MS applications, where they choked the poor
things with so many options that they had to separate out the most-used
ones. the toolbar is basically an expression of errors in UI design.
> : >If you find that difficult to do, then you should consider
> : > selling your computer and taking up flower arranging.
>
> : You have my persmission to delete man from your computer.
>
> I wish they had man in dos. I tried to use it. I also tried help.
> I wish window's default cli was more 'user friendly.' Sigh.
Well, so do I ... which is why I use Linux and Macintosh.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,microsoft.public.win2000.file_system
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:44:31 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Computers are getting faster, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the GDI
> moving back to user space land.
> OTOH, IIS is now traveling to kernel space... ;-D
Hmmmm. There is also one for Linux - and I'm not sure that that is a
good idea either.
> Okay, I'm not very strong on this subject either, so bear with me.
Are you really sure that Linux is Substandard then ?
> BTW, it might be good if you would read this:
> http://www.cswl.com/whiteppr/white/Guaranteed.html
Thanks for the link. I'll peruse this properly later.
> NT is full of layers (The Win32 is a good example), and the I/O is one of
> them.
>
> It'll probably be easier if I give an example first.
>
> Consider ISAPI, those are DLLs that are being using by IIS as extentions.
> You can tell IIS to call the ISAPI when someone makes a call to a certain
> file (or file's extention), when it send/receive something, etc.
> For example, ASP is implemented via a ISAPI, which gets call whenever the
> server gets a request for .asp file.
> PHP does much the same thing, btw.
This is nothing to do with basic kernel functions. These are simple
'dll's designed to speed IIS. This is a user space issue and component
library issue. What other subsystems are "seriously flawed"?
> The same is true for the file system.
> You get the devide driver, which tell the hardware to move to sector X, and
> send the data from this sector to the layer above it.
> Then you get the mid-level drivers:
> -- Some really funky stuff here, can't really think at the moment of some
> example.
> FS driver, which translate sectors on the HD to files & folders. This, I
> believe, also handle permissions.
Hmmmm. So the advantage of the architecture is ?
> Then you got whatever you layered on top of it.
> For example, you can set up a repharse point, which is another layer, which
> redirect your input to another place (soft link, on *nix).
> NTFS encryption, compression, etc are implemented as layers on top of this.
>
> The article above talk about how you can roll your own drivered for
> guranteed sustained throughput I/O on NT.
>
> Another example I can think of is to layer a FAT partition and make *sure*
> that the permissions (read only, are there any others?) are respected.
Hmmm. The Linux kernel takes care of this.
> > Also I know that presenting a good layered model was an issue in the
> > Linux TCP/IP stack.
>
> Can you give more details about it?
Problem was that there were two camps. Camp A wanted to get a well
layers TCP/IP stack where camp B wanted things to work. Initially camp B
won, but the TCP/IP stack has since be re-written to provides a proper
layered interface.
> Another part is that you can't generalize the VFS design to accomodate all
> sorts of security permissions, apperantly.
> (ACLs, UGO, some wierd stuff in between, some other wierd stuff that isn't
> between ACL & UGO, etc)
>
> (Just as a disclaimer, I read that thread over 6 months ago, I might have
> remembered incorrectly.)
>
> I'm not sure how Linux I/O model works (but would like an explanation ;-D ),
> so I can't make any further comments.
> I've already probably stuck my foot in my mouth ;-)
Hmmm. Then you would admit that your previous statement was a bit rash
in that case ?
> As a note, one way to add Ext2 support to NT is to build a FS driver, and a
> shell extention that kick on on Ext2 drives (like Security tab on NTFS
> drives).
There is one already one available, however access is not transparent.
> I suppose that you could do the same on Linux. How do you do it, though?
What? Add NTFS support - already there. It appears like any other file
system.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
dust!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:44:11 GMT
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:08:58 GMT, Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I learned my lesson never to download in X, I switch to a VT and
> download using ftp. X is just too unstable.
You are completely full of shit.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:44:14 GMT
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:21:06 -0700, Maynard Handley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Obviously moving "pure data files" is easy. The fun starts in getting
> over the DLLs, preference files and such like. And even some "pure data
> files" are not trivial---would you know offhand what to do to move your
> email environment from one machine to the next?)
Er, yeah, copy ~/.pinerc to the new machine. My mail lives on an IMAP
server so I don't have to copy that. If I were using POP3 I'd have to
copy ~/Mail too.
Per-user home directories are a good idea.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:49:28 -0700
In article <9fcrs5$9o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Somehow I knew you and windows would be a perfect match. When are you
> moving to AOL?
That's just plain mean, trying to lure the poor guy in over his head
again. If you had any sense of decency and humanity you would have asked
when was he moving to WebTV? and not sought to frighten the wits out of
this luckless individual by suggesting the dauntingly complex task of
configuring and using AOL. Shame on you.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
