Linux-Advocacy Digest #709, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (ZnU)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451692 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Peter Ammon)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Jonathan Abbey)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 01:11:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeeezus! I guess the OS/2 groups must be dead as the Tholen crap
> has moved over here. Do you suppose you Tholen folks could consider
> jumping on the BeOS bandwagon and taking your crap over there?
>
> Or....you could all find hobbies.
I move for the creation of an alt.emulation.tholen.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451692
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 01:23:19 GMT
Malloy let it slip recently that the way to end the thread is for me
to stop responding. However, we have over a year's worth of
experimental evidence that demonstrates rather convincingly that if
I ignore Malloy, he does not reciprocate. Clearly, he simply wants
to continue posting his invective with impunity. Obviously, he finds
some use in posting, yet he continues to refer to this as "uselessnet".
Let's keep a new running tally on the number of instances of his
hypocrisy. Here's the latest digest of not-previously-responded-to
postings of his from the last several weeks:
1> "Little man" Tholen attempts to obfuscate and tholens:
1>
1> There is no error in Jim's attribution line, "little man" Tholen.
1>
1> Those first four letters stand for "Kook of the Month" and that's
1> what you were duly elected, for March, 1998, thus attesting to your
1> exploits on uselessnet, "little man."
1>
1> Again, no error on Jim's part, "little man" Tholen.
1>
1> You're definitely a kook, that's for sure!
1>
1> Yet *you* responded anyway, as you have for years now, "little man"
1> Tholen.
1>
1> That proves Jim's attribution is correct, "little man" Tholen.
1>
1> QED, "little man" Tholen.
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then identify the alleged obfuscation, Malloy.
Then prove your claim, if you think you can, Malloy.
Then comprehend how one can recognize what they wrote, regardless of
the attribution.
Then comprehend the illogic of your alleged proof, considering that
one can recognize what they wrote, regardless of the attribution.
The comprehend the illogic of your alleged QED, considering that one
can recognize what they wrote, regardless of the attribution.
2> Tholen tholens again!
2>
2> Of course, he's tholening his wheels with nothing to say except one
2> broken phrase over and over.
2>
2> Never mind that I granted his "demand" (you can almost hear him
2> stamping his little foot, eh?!) some time ago, he doesn't understand
2> the answer.
2>
2> Oh well, what can one do, eh?
2>
2> I mean, the little man doesn't even understand how repeating someone
2> else's words with approbation lends them a veneer of respectibility!
2>
2> Talk about dumb!
2>
2> Here's a summary of items of news value:
2>
2> [ ]
2>
2> Thanks for reading!
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then identify the alleged granting of my so-called "demand".
Then realize that what one can do is either produce the alleged list of
made-up words I used in the postings where you levied the accusation or
admit that there is no such list.
Then identify the alleged repetition of someone else's words with
approbation.
Then comprehend the irony of your remark.
Then comprehend the irony of the absence of your list of alleged
made-up words I used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
3> Inconsistent with everything astronomers stand for, Tholen tholened
3> something or other against all odds. Here's what's new:
3>
3> [Ha, he fooled you! Nothing new whatsoever!]
3>
3> Thanks for reading...
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then tell us everything that astronomers stand for. Did you finally
check your dictionary for the definition of "astrologer"?
4> Tholen tholens:
4>
4> The inconsistency which "speaks for itself," Tholen. Never let it be said
4> that I was limiting things to just this *one* instance of your inconsistent
4> manner of, uh, "thinking" as if it were the only one, Tholen!
4>
4> Tholen tholens again:
4>
4> If you'd cease playing your "infantile game" with people, Tholen, people
4> would cease reponding to your claptrap. Oh, yeah, I forgot: it's attention
4> that you crave. Never mind.
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then identify the alleged inconsistent manner.
Then identify my alleged "infantile game", Malloy. I didn't respond to
you for more than a year. Did you cease responding to me? Of course not.
So much for your claim.
5> Ugh. Tholen has tholened another make-beleive digest of no news value.
5> Although I granted him the favor of a reply to his silly question in
5> previous messages, he now thinks he can "make points" (what, as a Kook?
5> He's already got that designation and it's official, too!) by asking it,
5> over and over. Yes, Tholen's a small mind with plenty of hobglobins, all
5> right, and his phony "consistency" is indeed the mark of that miniscule
5> mind.
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then prove that the "designation" is "official" if you think you can.
Readers will note your usual failure to do so.
6> Tholen tholens in absolute ignorance (what else is new?):
6>
6> You just don't get it, do you. SO WHAT if you weren't the originator of the
6> phrase "kook and a queer," YOU LENT THOSE WORDS YOUR WRETCHED CREDIBILITY
6> (compromised as it is) BY CITING THEM AS A MEANS OF ATTACK, Tholen. You
6> know less about language than the average undergraduate, Tholen.
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then identify the alleged ignorance, Malloy.
Then acquaint yourself with Sutherland's recent complaint, which was
what we were talking about.
7> Oh well, (little man) Tholen is still at it I see. The problem is, Jim, you
7> didn't go wrong -- (little man) Tholen did!
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then prove that Stuyck didn't go wrong.
8> There is no error in Jim's attribution line, "little man" Tholen. Those
8> first four letters stand for "Kook of the Month" and that's what you were
8> duly elected, for March, 1998, thus attesting to your exploits on
8> uselessnet, "little man."
8>
8> Again, no error on Jim's part, "little man" Tholen. You're definitely a
8> kook, that's for sure!
8>
8> Yet *you* responded anyway, as you have for years now, "little man" Tholen.
8> That proves Jim's attribution is correct, "little man" Tholen. QED, "little
8> man" Tholen.
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
Then prove that there is no error on Stuyck's part.
9> Tholen tholens again! Of course, he's tholening his wheels with nothing to
9> say except one broken phrase over and over. Never mind that I granted his
9> "demand" (you can almost hear him stamping his little foot, eh?!) some time
9> ago, he doesn't understand the answer. Oh well, what can one do, eh? I
9> mean, the little man doesn't even understand how repeating someone else's
9> words with approbation lends them a veneer of respectibility! Talk about
9> dumb! Here's a summary of items of news value:
9>
9> [ ]
9>
9> Thanks for reading!
First things first, Malloy. Identify the alleged made-up words that I
allegedly used in the postings where you levied the accusation.
As for "nothing to say", how ironic, coming from someone who has nothing
to say, but wants to say something, so he makes up words to do so.
Further evidence:
10> Inconsistent with reality, Tholen tholened another usual, boring,
10> meaningless digest in which he displayed the "ability" (can you call it
10> that?) to pick and choose comments without context (which he doesn't
10> understand anyway) to try to make himself look like an acceptable uselessnet
10> poster. No go. Here's the digest of everything he said/wrote/typed which
10> is of news value:
10>
10> [0]
10>
10> There you have it!
11> Today's Tholen digest, in which Tholen tholened once again, is full of sound
11> and furry [!] but it still means nothing, to witless:
11>
11> [0]
11>
11> Thanks for reading!
12> Ah, (little man) Tholen, you still don't understand that one can be placed
12> in a killfile and one can be removed again. You're just plain dumb, (little
12> man) Tholen.
13> No, no, Tholen, you don't understand (what else is new, eh?) -- you're the
13> antagonist and we're the *pro*tagonists. When you learn to read properly,
13> give me a shout.
14> Tholen's tholening some more:
14>
14> To which you tholened an "answer:"
14>
14> The alleged "libel" = the alleged "lying." Following your "lead," I don't
14> see where Jeff has said or done anything wrong, Tholen. It stands to
14> reason, however, that you're trying, ineffectively, to cover up your own
14> failings.
15> Tholen tholens:
15>
15> Sheesh, it's bloody obvious, Tholen. It takes far more than one person to
15> actually produce a film, ya' know.
16> Tholen tholened:
16>
16> ....to you, Tholen, the Master of the Cow Pies.
17> Tholen tholens his usual infantile game. Long-timers and short-timers alike
17> will ignore his baseless claims.
18> Ugh, Tholen tholens another:
18>
18> No, he's quite right, Kook.
18>
18> "Wayne Strang" wasn't even on the ballot, Tholen. You might as well stop
18> your lying.
18>
18> And long-timers also know how Tholen will glom onto whatever he can invent
18> to muddy a situation in which he comes off badly. That's part of his
18> infantile game.
19> Tholen still tholens:
19>
19> You're too dumb to recognize sarcasm, Tholen.
19>
19> In your case, it's as much of an "honor" as you're going to get.
19>
19> Namely the evidence that you're in denial, Tholen, and that the election was
19> both official and proper.
20> Ack! A true tholenization, tholened by Tholen:
20>
20> Oh? You just add extraneous material and thus begin the off-topic
20> conversation, Tholen. Hypocrite.
21> Tholen tholens once again:
21>
21> You don't quibble about words, Tholen? Hah! That's a laugh and a half!
21>
21> Right on, Jason!
22> Tholen tries hard but ends up tholening anyway:
22>
22> When it comes to you, Tholen, there's no difference at all.
23> "Little man" Tholen tholened the following:
23>
23> Still playing (hmm, maybe you're not playing!) dumb, (little man) Tholen?
23>
23> Gee, and to think you could have acted -- here and now! -- the same way,
23> (little man) Tholen...
24> "Little man" Tholen, in a tholenesque sort of way, tholened the following:
24>
24> Not at all, (little man) Tholen; it's as clear as the mud on your face.
24>
24> Obviously it doesn't work with you, (little man) Tholen.
25> Tholen tholened:
25>
25> I know, Gerben! Steven's "departure" came in close temporal proximity to
25> his going to the bathroom! That's probably closer to the truth than
25> anything Tholen the Astrologer doesn't say. (What a hoot! Asked to back up
25> his claim, Tholen says: "You're not serious?!")
25>
25> We all *know* how much time you have on your hands, Tholen, enough time to
25> indulge your "infantile game."
26> Tholen unbelievable tholens:
26>
26> Prove it, if you think.
26>
26> "Except for me"
26>
26> Ah, I see: it's ok for *you* to jump to a conclusion, for after all, it's
26> The Not-so-Great Tholen, n'est pas? But woe betide anyone else doing the
26> same thing, oh no, we can't have that. Balderdash, I say, balderdash.
27> "Little man" Tholen tholened the following:
27>
27> Still can't get over the fact that you are a duly-elected Kook Of The Month,
27> eh (little man) Tholen?
28> "Little man" Tholen, the Kook's Kook, tholened:
28>
28> (little man) Tholen would'nt know a correct attribution if it came up and
28> bit him on the arse. Nothing new there.
28>
28> By the way: Note, no (little man) Tholen response.
28>
28> Oh, c'mon, (little man) Tholen, give it a rest. You refer to the typos of
28> your opponents as if you don't understand them, heck, you pretend not to
28> understand regular conversations when it suits you, so Jim is entitled, nay,
28> *required* to razz you when you make a similar error (and you do it
28> frequently, little man).
28>
28> Sheesh, what a nincompoop you are!
29> Gerben, in a fit of wild genius, wrote:
29>
29> This is just too precious! Congratulations, Gerben, on showing up Tholen
29> for what he is -- a self-important boob and a hypocrite to boot!
29>
29> Cheers...
30> "Little man" Tholen tholenates us by tholenizing some more:
30>
30> Still in denial about the fact that you were voted a Kook of the Month,
30> (little man) Tholen?
31> Gosh, Tholen tholes again:
31>
31> He identified it for you, Tholen. That's more than you do when asked to
31> prove one of your inane claims. But it's all part of your infantile game,
31> eh Tholen.
32> "Little man" Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) engaged the tholenation process
32> once more and tholened thusly:
32>
32> Incorrect, (little man) Tholen, as you only attempted to cover your tracks
32> with Gerben.
33> Tholen tholens:
33>
33> How doubly ironic.
34> Tholen tholens:
34>
34> Typical immaturity, consistent with Tholen's role as an immature astrologer.
34>
34> Not nearly so ironic as it is coming from "infantile" Tholen.
35> Tholen tholened:
35>
35> Feeling threated, eh Tholen? If Brad's posts are "hateful," you'll just
35> have to live with the competition. By the way, Kook of the Month, you darn
35> well know who made homophobic, hateful posts -- you see him everyday
35> <shudder!> in the mirror.
36> Tholen tholened:
36>
36> And it's just as clear that you are the homophobic liar filled with hate,
36> Tholen. Oh, the irony!
37> Today's Tholen digest, no. 1, in which Tholen tholens:
37>
37> Too bad you're wrong, Tholen, his script knows *exactly* when it's
37> appropriate to use those strings.
37>
37> Yes, indeed, so much for your baseless assertion.
38> Today's Tholen digest, no. 2, in which Tholen tholens inconsistently with
38> human beings:
38>
38> I've snipped everything in accordance with Tholen Guidelines for
38> Non-responsiveness and summarized the news he has provided below:
38>
38> [0]
38>
38> Thanks for reading!
39> Tholen tholens:
39>
39> Many are a lot, Tholen, and they are people. [Boy, you're dumb!]
40> Tholen, ever tholening, tholes again:
40>
40> You just proved it for me, Tholen.
40>
40> And what you know, Tholen, is also mightily irrelevant.
40>
40> That fact that you did it, Tholen, proves that I can.
40>
40> Balderdash. I'm correctly presupposing the existence of some previous lack
40> of comprehension, Tholen.
40>
40> Sez who? You? Ha!
41> Tholen doth thole:
41>
41> Thank you, Tholen, you just provided me with even more proof.
41>
41> I'm correctly presupposing the existence of some previous inability, Tholen.
41>
41> Oh, okay, I'll answer it: You can't buy "it" in any store because you're not
41> smart enough to ask for it.
41>
41> *You* can't buy "it" in any store because you're not smart enough to ask for
41> it.
41>
41> So much for you.
42> Tholen tholes again:
42>
42> You just provided the proof, Tholen.
42>
42> I'm correctly presupposing the existence of some previous inability, Tholen.
42>
42> Balderdash, Tholen. You're merely dumb.
42>
42> I see that you didn't answer my question. No surprise there.
43> Tholening, the Tholen tholes:
43>
43> You just provided the necessary proof, Tholen.
43>
43> I'm correctly presupposing the existence of some previous inability to
43> fathom the rules, Tholen.
43>
43> Not very, except insofar as it reveal more of your delusional psyche,
43> Tholen.
43>
43> You just provided proof for me, Tholen.
44> Tholen tholens:
44>
44> You just provided proof, Tholen.
44>
44> I'm correctly presupposing the existence of some previous inability, Tholen.
44>
44> Classic denial.
44>
44> How silly of you to respond!
44>
44> Balderdash.
44>
44> Which oddly enough can never be Windows, Tholen. Yeah, right.
45> Tholen tholes, making a mockery of reality:
45>
45> Nor does it explain why *you're* here, the person claiming he doesn't
45> advocate OS/2 but nevertheless posting til the cows come home.
45>
45> You lie, libel, distort and play with truth, you cut up the messages you
45> don't like until there's no sense to be had from them, respond to illusory
45> "digests" which are nothing more than an attempt to make yourself look
45> passable and pretend to know things and have experienced things that you've
45> haven't at all. And then you manage to tick people off by referring to some
45> people as "kook[s] and a queer," my god, Tholen, what's wrong with you! I
45> mean, this is just an advocacy group, after all, it's not as if anyone makes
45> important decisions based on what they read here. And all this in the name
45> of some phony sense of "logic." You're living proof of the limits, and
45> they are great, of "logic."
46> Tholen can't help but tholen some more:
46>
46> What didn't you understand about the original statement, Tholen? Why can't
46> you restrain yourself, Tholen?
47> Inconsistent with anything sane, here's today's Tholen digest, which
47> includes everything Tholen has written of any value whatsoever:
47>
47> [sorry, ain't nothin' here!]
47>
47> Oh, well, tune in the next time Tholen posts garbage - which should be
47> [checking watch] right about now!
48> Inconsistent with anything normal people do, Tholen tholened another
48> tholenation. Herewith are included all the parts of whatever he's tholened
48> of significance:
48>
48> [Surprise! Nothing!]
48>
48> Thanks for reading.
49> Oy, Tholen tholened some more:
49>
49> Because you wanted to know, Tholen, is it *that* difficult to understand?
50> Tholen tholens:
50>
50> You're a "crazie" because of the people whose facts you question are users
50> of anything but OS/2; you're a "crazie" because you split people's arguments
50> into microscopic pieces and "rebut" them; you're a "crazie" because you cut
50> and paste the arguments of others until there is no logic left to them and
50> then accuse them of being "illogical;" you're a "crazie" for your gratuitous
50> insults to others, including "accusing" them of being "a kook and a queer."
50> You are a "crazie" for numerous other reasons, Tholen, but one thing is
50> clear: you're crazy.
50>
50> The only "infantile game" played with and a response to you, Tholen, and it
50> mocks the "infantile game" you've been playing for nigh unto ten years on
50> this group.
50>
50> Hey, you asked.
51> Tholen, the Tholenator, tholenates the following:
51>
51> His "own venom," as described by you, is venom only to those who mindlessly
51> extol virtues of an OS without recognizing the OS's liabilities. Sound like
51> you, Tholen. Gosh, *your* venom overwhelms everything!
52> Oh boy, Tholen tholens some more by yet again removing context (sorry I
52> missed the previous one but duty calls -- besides, it has the net effect of
52> *every* Tholen digest, i.e., absolutely nothing). Inconsistent with
52> established standards of non-goofiness, the digest version of Tholen's
52> ineptitude reveals --
52>
52> [nothing! (See?) Ta-da!]
52>
52> Thanks for reading.
53> Today's Tholen digest is full of nothing:
53>
53> [yep, nothing but these word to sum them up!]
53>
53> Thanks for reading!
54> Today's Tholen digest:
54>
54> [ ]
54>
54> Thanks for reading!
55> Today's Tholen digest is full of fresh foolery from the fogbottom of Tholen
55> and not much else [He should be half as smart as anybody in Foggy Bottom!].
55> Take a look at everything of value:
55>
55> [ ]
55>
55> That's it! Thanks for reading!
56> Gosh, a single, three-word "digest" and Tholen feels the need to tholen it:
56>
56> Today's Tholen digest, in which everything of value written by Tholen for
56> the past 10 years is summarized:
56>
56> [ ]
56>
56> That's it!
57> Tholen tholes some more. He manages a digest by breaking postings apart and
57> editing them until he can find a spot to insert something he thinks makes
57> him look good. Today's Tholen digest, in which the meat of Tholen's matter
57> is summarized:
57>
57> [Uh oh, look like it's just fat!]
57>
57> Bye!
58> Tholening, Tholen tholes:
58>
58> Asked, answered, answer willfully miscontrued by Tholen.
58>
58> Classic denial.
58>
58> Because it *was* there, Tholen, but you've developed a blindness to anything
58> you don't want to see.
58>
58> On the basis that it's true.
58>
58> Who are you quoting, Tholen?
59> Tholen tholens some more:
59>
59> Hey, let's do to Tholen what he does to Edwin Thorne is today's digest!
59>
59> Ta-da! Tholen has herewith tholed another answer, which is to say, he
59> merely denies everything and dismisses it out of hand. Does he join the
59> "advocacy" group for what he claims he believes in? Nope, he tholens right
59> here. What a liar!
60> Today's Tholen digest...and all he can is repeat a few phrases which he has
60> "popularized" and add a few words here or there. The sum total of them:
60>
60> [move along, c'mon, move along, there's nothing to see here]
60>
60> Thanks for reading!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 01:27:08 GMT
Mike writes:
> Joe Malloy wrote:
>> Today's Tholen digest...and all he can is repeat a few phrases which he
>> has "popularized" and add a few words here or there. The sum total of
>> them:
>>
>> [move along, c'mon, move along, there's nothing to see here]
>>
>> Thanks for reading!
> Jeeezus! I guess the OS/2 groups must be dead as the Tholen crap
> has moved over here.
On the contrary, the OS/2 groups are quite alive. The "Tholen crap" has
not "moved" from there; it's still there. Malloy is simply exporting his
"Tholen crap" to other newsgroups.
> Do you suppose you Tholen folks could consider jumping on the BeOS
> bandwagon and taking your crap over there?
Obviously you don't understand Malloy.
> Or....you could all find hobbies.
Malloy already has one. It's a rather unusual hobby, but a hobby
nonetheless.
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 18:35:36 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 11:19:21 -0700, Peter Ammon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Chris Wenham wrote:
> >>
> >> Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > But end-user Unix applications are on average
> >> > bloatier, buggier, uglier, much less usable, and overall shittier than
> >> > their Windows counterparts.
> >>
> >> Can you give examples of this?
> >
> >The free ICQ client that I used with LinuxPPC was more unstable, harder
> >to install, and harder to uninstall than both of the Mac ICQ clients
> >I've used, and I presume the Windows ones too.
>
> www.helixcode.com - try the desktop, and oh, get LinuxICQ too....
Thanks, I'll give it a whirl.
Perhaps this isn't the appropriate group (though it certaintly is
crossposted enough that I might get lucky!) but can someone explain what
Gnome is? My understanding is that it's a GUI that operates under the
X-Window system and allows for different window managers (i.e. "skins")
such as Enlightenment. If this is the case, then what's the difference
between Helix GNOME and the GNOME that came with my LinuxPPC distribution?
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Abbey)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 26 May 2000 20:26:26 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| consider a simple program. call it widget.
|
| it's got a man page and config. its executable is
|
| /usr/bin/widget
|
| /usr/man/man1/widget
|
| /etc/widget.cf
|
| notice how the files are scattered all over the filesystem. if the
| names are strange or it installs more files, it can get messy fast. i
I would consider a software package that depended on such scattering
to be broken.
| don't mind them being all over the place, i just want a record of
| this. the make install should create a log of what got installed
| where. then i could copy this file somewhere and keep track of the
| whole widget package. i wish this were a standard feature of people's
| makefiles.
That would be nice, obviously, but the previous poster was correct
when he said that the real answer here is for UNIX software to be
packaged with support for a '--prefix=' type option. That lets you
use stuff like opt_depot/STOW/depot/STORE/encap/LUDE/etc.
| i'm not looking for any magic bullets to rescue a broken filesystem, i
| just want a little help keeping tracking of what went where.
Unfortunately, creation of an installation list has never been a
common thing to do in UNIX software packaging. You're probably going
to be better off using the mechanism that is there (--prefix), or just
biting the bullet and going with something like RPM or the Debian
Package format which will track everything for you in said database.
| --
| J o h a n K u l l s t a m
| [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Don't Fear the Penguin!
--
===============================================================================
Jonathan Abbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Research Laboratories The University of Texas at Austin
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX http://www.arlut.utexas.edu/gash2
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:43:13 +0200
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps this isn't the appropriate group (though it certaintly is
> crossposted enough that I might get lucky!) but can someone explain what
> Gnome is? My understanding is that it's a GUI that operates under the
> X-Window system and allows for different window managers (i.e. "skins")
> such as Enlightenment. If this is the case, then what's the difference
> between Helix GNOME and the GNOME that came with my LinuxPPC distribution?
Gnome is a desktop, Enlightenment is a window manager which can use
different themes (or skins, if you like).
I believe LinuxPPC comes with Helix (I used to use it, but I prefer
Yellow Dog now).
I believe KDE is based on a non-free version of QT and thus Gnome should
be prefered by "politically correct" GNU users. Well, at least I
remember RMS saying that.
I use Gnome.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: 26 May 2000 20:33:07 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ypical Linux bullshit...Config, config, config and waste more time
>with each config.
So, let's see you build a windows configuration that will
fit on a floppy and do something useful. Perhap act
as a router...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
