Linux-Advocacy Digest #564, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Top 20 Reasons to use Linux ("Noname")
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Mig Mig)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Andy Newman)
Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) (tholenbot)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Marty)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Noname" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 20 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:07:46 GMT
20. Linux is not from Microsoft
19. You think running "Windows" on PC is not as sexy
as running "X-Window" on PC
18. Linux is not from Microsoft
17. You find your co-workers are better paid. You don't
have money to buy books for your skill upgrade.
And you find "Open Source" serves your purpose.
16. Linux is not from Microsoft
15. You got low mark on "FIFO" in school. You want to
let your professor know that you are actually smart
that you can even understand something "greater
than" FIFO" ("LILO" > "FIFO")
14. Linux is not from Microsoft
13. You are trying to make ends meet. You hate to hear
"$Bill Gets". You love anything "$Free"
"Noname" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MozU4.4471$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 12. You grew an allergy to Microsoft products. You want
> to try something non-microsoft to see if that can stop
> your symptoms of itchy watery eyes and runny nose
>
> 11. You want to steal something without getting caught
> by police. Linux gives you the lawful protection to
> such adventure
>
> "Full Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 10. You can't afford a real Unix system such as Solaris.
> >
> > 9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day building
> > kernels is actually a step up.
> >
> > 8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
> > if I can't connect to my ISP.
> >
> > 7. You have a weird sexual fetish for pot bellied penguins.
> >
> > 6. Your father committed suicide during the 80's stock market crash
> > by leaping form the 15'Th story and the mere mention of the word
> > "window" causes you to break down and cry.
> >
> > 5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
> > obvious genius and recommending Linux to them is your way of
> > extracting revenge.
> >
> > 4. You hate yourself and as a child you hated your mother.
> >
> > 3. Your one and only girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
> > ran away to Redmond.
> >
> > 2. The school bully who gave you a wedgy while you were making eyes at
> > the only female computer geek in your class is an avid Windows user.
> >
> > And the number one reason for using Linux...
> >
> > 1. You actually enjoy having a pineapple shoved up your arse.
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 00:09:54 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
> <8fujj3$2f75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >What point? Everything has bugs. If there is any point, it is that
> >the number of important bugs decreases continuously over a 15 or
> >20 year span as long as the author(s) pay attention to history.
>
> My point is that Linux is not immune from virii.
There is no point. As others have pointed out this bug occured three years
before Linux started coding a kernel.
Even if this had happened with a Linux app then it would still be a "no
point" since its 13 years old. You've got to do better than this!!
You can not see the difference between a virus and a worm and thats
pathetic.
> >Some companies like to ignore history, forcing their users to
> >repeat the worst parts.
>
> I could say this is equally true of Linux in terms of "ease of use".
> However I can see some improvement here, it's just not quite there yet.
Ease of use is uninteresting! The "war" here is between NT and Linux and
the people using those two know how to control their computers without (Two
much) point&click.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:57:01 GMT
In article <WugU4.4134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8frjnq$48e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <gHTS4.3054$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> >
> > In 1994 and early 1995, many companies exploring the internet
> > couldn't see the possibility of revenue, let alone profit, in
> > owning, operating, and management of internet sites. Today,
> > there are 13 million servers, with average revenue of about
> > $3000/server/month.
>
> Assuming "$3000/server/month" is the average income for 13M servers,
> it's likely that many of those servers aren't making
> any money at all.
Actually, to be fair, I was using last year's revenue estimates
of roughly 360 billion dollars, but I was using last month's
(March 2000) Netcraft estimate of 13 million servers. Actually,
in December of 1999, there were only about 5 million .com sites.
That would indicate average revenue of about $72,000 per site.
Since many of these sites are also "clicks and bricks" sites,
which means that the web sites generated interest, but revenue
was collected through other means (phone, store-front, mail-order,
fax-order), it's likely that the total revenue generated on
a per-site basis was actually much much higher than the $360 billion
spent via on-line credit card purchases. If one considers that the
GNP is about $6 trillion, and nearly half those purchases were
influenced by web supplied information, the revenue might me more
like about $700,000 per site. If you deduct the "pure vanity"
sites, you may even approach $1 million in revenue per site.
There's one problem. If you go with the "conventional" solution,
Netscape Commerce Serve, Oracle Database, Broadvision composition
tools, and all the training and licenses to match, the cost of
the site is about $1 million per year.
On the other hand, if you have a staff preparer, or pay flat rates
per page, and use colocated hostincg services, you con built the
same functions on Linux/Apache for about $50,000 to $200,000/year.
I pay $350/year plus $10,000 per year (cost of my labor at standard
rates) and generate about $150,000/year in revenue through secondary
sources. I've worked with some other publishers, many of them average
a 400% to 900% profit, because they stick to basics.
> even if we further assume that the cost for
> purchasing and maintaining the servers is zero.
In many cases, it is near zero. The netcraft survey counts domains
and ip addresses (where both are unique). Many of these domains
are shared host services, and on Linux/Apache or UNIX/Apache
(my host is actually FreeBSD/Apache) you can host 10-30 sites,
depending on load and traffic.
> If we add cost factor, that number has the risk of going
> toward negative. Yes, Linux is free, but nothing else is free.
True. It's a bit amusing to watch a client quibble over a $1500
license on a contract that costs $4000/day. The delay could cost
$10,000/week, yet the client spends 3 weeks going through the
"approval cycle process".
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:09:26 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>c) Mounting a device covers the contents of the directory it was
>mounted in. Whoever implemented this needs to be beaten with a clue-by-
>4.
The designers of Unix fixed this about ten years ago with union
mounts. BSD implements them and Linux is getting them (according
to Alex Viro in comp.os.plan9).
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:29:30 GMT
Sam wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2000 03:41:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >*snip a rational, well placed expository*
> >
> >> People like Charlie, and abraxas have stated that they believe themselves
> >> to be more intelligent simply because they are Linux users.
> >
> >I never stated that.
> >
> >Let me be very clear:
> >
> >I am more intelligent than a potential linux user who throws their hands
> >up in disgust the moment linux becomes 'difficult'.
>
> Sometimes it is best not to waste time on something you do not need.
>
> >Linux is not difficult. Linux is easy.
>
> What do you mean by 'Linux' ? Do you mean installing, administering,
> managing files, or just clicking on an app to make it run ? The skill
> level goes from minor to enormous.
>
> >The problem comes with individuals
> >approaching it in the same way that they approach windows--whether or not
> >windows is inferior, it is an entirely different beast, and the
> >intelligent person treats it accordingly.
>
> Depends what you are trying to do, The average person at home wants to
> access the net, email, and run a few consumer apps and games.
>
> Windows is the best for them and it has a growth path all the way to
> professional level.
>
> An intelligent person does not use a sledge hammer where a normal
> hammer will do. What possible reason would there be for the average
> user to use Linux, Crasy !!.
>
> The only viable option to windows is an iMac.
>
> Sam
NO. The mac OS is based on the FreeBSD kernel!
So you'd be getting about the same thing.
http:\\www.freebsd.org
See this for more details.
I think for fun you should try the KDE desktop.
I think you'll find it's a breath of fresh air when compared to Windows.
Oh, and it WORKS!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:31:05 -0500
In article <3922db3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Lewis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > >
> > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards
> > > > II"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > >
> > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. How typical.
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> $19.95 please (shipping and handling fees.)
Jumping into a discussion, again, Brian?
> >
> > > Tholenbot always picks the right newgroup for
> > > the
> > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> >
> > The right "newgroup"? How rich!
>
> On what basis do you claim that the "newgroup" is "rich"?
Taking jumping into discussion lessons from Curtis Bass again, Brian?
How predictable.
> >
> > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> >
> > What alleged "misinformation"?
>
> Why, don't you know?
I see that, in typical Brian "I Don't Answer the Question" Lewis
fashion, you didn't answer the question.
> >
> > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > >
> > > Ask your grasshopper
> >
> > The grasshopper is in my head.
>
> What alleged "head"?
If you hadn't jumped into the discussion, you would have recognized the
correct head.
> >
> > --
> > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
>
> Illogical.
Yet again you fail to answer the question. Of course, that is to be
expected, coming from you.
--
Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:32:58 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >So, that brings the score up to about n:1, with n=???.
>
> What's score got to do with it?
>
> About all the numbers show is how popular Windows is, and how Linux is not.
>
> Pete
Oh but Chad has told us there ARE NO backdoors to Windows!
I can't believe there is another non-Charlie inspired article about
backdoors again!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:35:38 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 02:03:23 +1000,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623637730
> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623940112
> >
> >I'm afraid I can't see any lies there. Perhaps you'd care to post the
> >specific parts you're referring to ?
>
> I already did at
>
> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
>
> To which he never responded.
>
> >> >Your lack of English comprehension validates no reasons to call me a
> >liar.
> >>
> >> Now you're stooping to insults.
> >
> >You call _that_ an insult ? Sheesh, how did you get through school ? :)
>
> You are defending his insult with another insult. Do you guys play tag team??
>
> >> >: You have also shown yourself to be somewhat unreasonably prejudicial:
> >> >
> >> >: http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624188730
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps. I can easily say the exact same thing about you.
> >>
> >> Show me where. Give a reference to one of my posts were I act in such
> >> an arrogant way as you act towards all users of an OS.
> >
> >One does not need to act in an arrogant manner towards "all users of an OS"
> >to be prejudiced.
>
> Well then show me where I'm prejudiced. Specifically reference some of
> my posts as your proof.
>
> >However, I do not see Stephen condeming all Linux users, merely the zealots
>
> Anyone he disagrees with enough he labels a zealot.
>
> >(whom are, unfortunately, the most commonly noticed). Indeed, some of us
> >can even remember when Stephen *was* a Linux zealot :).
>
> Zealotry is an aspect of one's personality, not whatever one cause one
> follows. So when a zealot of one cause changes to another cause, or
> even the exact opposite cause, he tends to remain a zealot.
>
> Perry
I like being a zealot.
IN fact, I'd like to be KING zealot in the next Linux martigras!
Let me throw them CD's!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:37:55 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fuigo$2bmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <YBuU4.69985$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >Hmm. I can think of no example where this is absurt, but
> >I am not entirely confident of it in princinple. You seem
> >to be suggesting that MS should provide hooks for
> >everything they themselves do, if they change per-connection
> >or per-client for it or per-option.
>
> Either that or just admit that they are a monopoly and out
> to take advantage of that status by forcing you into using
> as many of their additional-cost items as possible. If the
> federal government can continue to deal with them on those
> terms I suppose everyone else will have to as well.
Hmmm? Given a sufficiently permissive definition of a monopoly
they certainly *are* such, but I don't care about that.
And they do want to get you to use their products.
That's a *good* thing; it keeps them improving their products.
> >AFAIK, they do so- but they two
> >things seem unrelated to me, and I'm not sure why you link them.
>
> They don't,
Y'all keep telling me, but whenever I look it up
a specific example, I find they *do* provide hooks
to do the things you say you can't do.
> and I link them because the thing they have in
> common is preventing competition.
I do not agree with this view that competition is a fragile,
delicate thing that must be nutured and protected lest
MS demolish it with a hard gaze.
> >You also seem to be singling out *network* stuff, and I'm
> >not sure why you do that.
>
> Because it is the main place where you want to use another
> vendor's product as an alternative.
Why?
> If you have already
> purchased an OS, it generally doesn't make sense to replace
> a component within it, but it also should not force you to
> purchase another copy of that same OS for other machines
> on the network in order to interoperate fully.
Honestly, it seems pretty commonplace to me. MS is pretty
good about not requiring that compared to most; from
what I've seen. They don't just provide hooks to implement
these clients; they provide the clients themselves for many
popular network managers.
> >> You should
> >> never be forced to buy something for the other end of your
> >> connection just because you have a bundled client for it,
> >> or to use a particular client because only the same vendor's
> >> software will accept your password.
> >
> >Unfortunately, for this vision to become reality it is not sufficient
> >for Microsoft to support substitution competitors products in
> >these areas- which they do- but it is also necessary for there to be
> >demand- and there isn't.
>
> I think you are dreaming... I'd go for a multi-platform server
> capable of replacing a win2k domain controller and active
> directory server in a second if it didn't contain MS licensed
> code and was sold by people competing on price.
They perhaps you should make your wishes- and your
pocketbook :D better known. It *is* possible to do this.
> >Microsoft's stuff works quite well enough.
>
> For??? I have my reasons not to trust it, and even if I accept
> vendor-lock on the software I don't want hardware-platform-lock
> for my servers.
If you don't trust it, don't use it. Don't expect everyone else to
agree with you on that.
[snip]
> >They do document their APIs. I don't see why they should documents
> >their protocols; just because Unix protocols are treated as part
> >of the API, it does not follow that Microsoft must do likewise.
>
> Doing otherwise gives them monopoly control over anyone using
> one component.
I get the feeling you use "monopoly" as an curse.
No, my friend, there *is* life outside of Unix. Doing it the
way Unix does it is *not* manadatory.
> >Doing so has the disadvantage that you can't change protocols
> >without breaking stuff. Since MS has clearly recognized the deficiecies
> >in the old LANMAN security system, It is hardly surprising that
> >they would want to keep their options open here.
>
> But the LANMAN stuff has been specifically maintained even through
> the changes that have broken samba interoperability.
They have tried to fix some of its flaws, but it appears they are
now abandoning it for Kerberos.
> Their
> 'options' are clearly that they want the ability to break any
> competing product while continuing to keep their own bad products
> working.
And not their good products? :D
Look, if you *insist* on depending on the implementation details
of Windows to interoperate with it, you've no-one to blame but
yourself when you get burned.
[snip]
> >> And of course win2k changes the rules again.
> >
> >Win2K doesn't change anything about this; it provides a second
> >bundled security provider, one that implements MS's Kerberos
> >variant. As far as I can see, no changes were needed to the API
> >to do this.
>
> The samba team had a working substitute for NT domain controller
> authentication. It doesn't work with win2k clients. Does that
> surprise you?
No. They wrote their domain controller so that it depended on
the internal implementation of NT authentication. It's not
at all surprising that it broke.
[snip]
> >> This is pretty complicated stuff to wade through. Is there an
> >> instance of anything that is working with it?
> >
> >Yes. Microsoft's new MS-Kerberos thing is done this way.
>
> I meant someone else.
None that I know of. MS has generally provided client models
for every network management scheme that mattered, so
nobody else seems to be bothering.
[snip]
> >No. This API does not make it possible to interoperate between an MS
> >domain controller and something else. It makes it possible to
> >integrate a Windows client and some other security provider
> >than an MS domain controller.
>
> In other words no other product is supposed to interoperate with
> a domain controller?
I *think* that MS's domain controllers can drive Macs, Unix
boxes, and so on. It uses their protocols to do this.
> >Thus, you can supply your own domain controllers that use
> >whatever protocol you like. But mixing MS domain controllers
> >with your own is not supported this way.
>
> A bad thing indeed.
Just because it isn't the way Unix does it, it doesn't make it
Bad.
> >On the up side, this allows Microsoft to change their wire
> >protocols at will without breaking your software. And they
> >do so love changing wire protocols. :D
>
> They could only do that if you replace every one of their
> products at the same time.
Not really so; while it may be the case that in Unix only
one protocol may be used at a time, MS security software
can do more than one at a time. You can upgrade
incrementally if you chose.
[snip]
> >No doubt. But if you can't *use* new APIs for a long time, then MS
> >would have to wait a long time for it to make a difference; do you
> >contend that they do so?
>
> Yes, long enough to cause serious cash-flow problems for any
> other company who counted on the system to be in widespread
> use at a certain point in time.
I think you are just being paranoid. You keep *saying* they do stuff,
but there's no meat.
I *know* your willing to believe anything that puts MS in a bad light,
but some of us are much more charitable to them. Repeated
accusation will not move those of us who feel that way.
> >> Or providing dial-up TCP for Win3.x that meshed with win-for-workgroups
> >> networking? That would have been bending over backwards. No, that
> >> would have been just reasonable. They didn't do that.
> >
> >You may well complain that Windows feature set is not all you'd hope
> >for; I'm quite sympathetic to that claim, especially when you are talking
> >about Win3. But it has nothing to do with this!
>
> History often repeats itself.
One hopes MS will not backslide; I see no reason to
expect them to.
> >> If history repeats, it will happen
> >> as soon as that apps division has a version of Office that requires
> >> the new API.
> >
> >Microsoft hasn't done that since they switched to Windows 95, and
> >dropped 16-bit Windows support in new versions of Office.
>
> And before that, they were telling the Wordperfect (etc.) people to
> develop for the OS/2 API up until the MS apps for windows were
> ready.
MS was officially behind OS/2 well *after* they had apps for
Windows. They switched horses when Windows 3 took off.
I'm suprised they didn't keep pushing WordPerfect towards
OS/2 until then.
> >That history might repeat, but I see no reason to expect it to do so
> >*soon*; Win2000 is not that different; being compatiblty with Win2K and
> >earlier Windows as well isn't that hard.
>
> Just wait until MS apps has something new to take advantage of
> the new API that can make them a bundle in upgrade fees and
> it will be deja vu all over again.
What, in your view, would be needed for this to happen? A transition
to 64-bits? A new line-drawing command? Something in between?
[snip]
> So far they must not have anything that is worth forcing the issue
> to push. That will change, but probably in steps where they
> first sell (bundle, give away?) little things that run under
> win95/98 that need active directory services to be fully functional
> (and of course they won't take the obvious LDAP alternative).
> Want active directory - you'll have to get win2k.
Oh sure; *that* is par for the course. Want the cool new features,
fork over the money. MS is no charity.
But why would you expect them to be?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:37:17 GMT
Jumping into discussions again, Brian? How typical.
Brian Lewis wrote:
>
> "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > >
> > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > >
> > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. How typical.
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> $19.95 please
How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
> (shipping and handling fees.)
How ironic.
> > > Tholenbot always picks the right newsgroup for the
> > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> >
> > The right "newsgroup"? How rich!
>
> On what basis do you claim that the "newsgroup" is "rich"?
Don't you know?
> > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> >
> > What alleged "misinformation"?
>
> Why, don't you know?
See what I mean?
> > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > >
> > > Ask your grasshopper
> >
> > The grasshopper is in my head.
>
> What alleged "head"?
Reading comprehension problems?
> > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
>
> Illogical.
On what basis do you make this claim?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:38:43 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
abraxas wrote:
> I love redhat.
>
> Yes, redhat and derivatives assume that if you put a CD into the
> CDROM on your system, that you want it mounted right then and there
> in /mnt and /mnt only. Its actually a handy way of doing things.
>
> But the reasoning stands with pretty much all other devices.
>
> -----yttrx
It has nothing to do with Redhat and is not limited to the CD drive or
/mnt. All of the magic is handled by autofs.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
