Linux-Advocacy Digest #171, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
....... (abraxas)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (abraxas)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Synthetic Speach on Linux (David Dorward)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Darren Winsper)
Re: Good Work Mozilla.. (Darren Winsper)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Darren Winsper)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Darren Winsper)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 13:44:33 -0600
Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <8htk0a$8td$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
>
> >One difference is that (if I'm interpreting the description correctly)
> >it assumes that if a volume is mounted as `My Files' on one system, it
> >will be mounted as `My Files' on _any_ other system it happens to be
> >moved to; I can mount a filesystem as `/usr/local' on one computer and
> >as '/mnt/goofy/usr/local' on another using the Unix model. Being able
> >to do this has made life a lot easier on more than one occasion.
>
> The only advantages of this would seem to be a direct result of
> limitations of UNIX itself--for example, the special meaning of
> pathnames like "/usr/local". There are no such "reserved" pathnames on
> MacOS (not even the names of the System Folder or the System or Finder
> files are hard-coded anywhere).
>
> Thus it is quite clear that this "feature" of referring to an object on
> a removable filesystem by different names on different systems is in
> fact a drawback, since it doesn't allow you to store stable object
> references on that volume, or indeed on any other.
They each have their drawbacks. The UNIX way is more obscure, until
you understand what's going on -- the MacOS way can lead to whacky
problems like strange names ("Please insert the disk named 'CA 5982'",
huh?) or the volume-swapping problems (floppy in, floppy out, floppy
in, floppy out -- I played that game quite often on my Macs) and
writing AppleScripts which go to non-standard locations (ie, other
than the extension folder and such names imported by the scriptable
finder) can have fun problems; part of the reason AppleScript is such
a pain is because of this convoluted naming system.
Under unix, I can put in a multi-partion Zip disk and mount them to
any place I like:
/My Zip Disk/First Partition
/My Zip Disk/Second Partition
Whereas under MacOS, they always just pop up there, and if my wife
changes the name on it... oh well. MacOS X, if it is anything like
NeXT, will have a very nice compromise:
kelleyc > uname -a
NeXT Mach 3.0 m68k <system name> : Wed Jul 29 19:43:28 PDT 1992
kelleyc > df
Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/sd0a 1018739 766094 150771 84% /
/dev/sd1a 1018739 708658 208207 77% /Users
autoNovellMount 80000 40000 32000 56% /Net/NetWare
UNIX flexibility coupled with friendly file structures. MacOS X
should be one incredible OS when it comes out...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 13:45:44 -0600
Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Linux is aimed at POSIX-compliance and the old standard filesystem.
>
> Who uses POSIX any more?
MacOS X, of course.
> >We certainly wouldn't like it if critical utilities like Sendmail,
> >XFree86, and such suddenly would stop working.
>
> Why not fix those programs to work with a more modern filesystem? I
> know--because they would then break on UNIXes still using the old
> filesystem. So what you're saying is you're stuck in a vicious circle,
> where you can't fix the OS because the apps will break, and you can't
> fix the apps because the OS will break?
But MacOS X will *use* UNIX conventions... Seems Apple has seen the
light. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:50:49 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:05:50 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As it happens i don't have spare time for reboots, crashes, etc, etc.
>> Also, I'm no longer 19 (as of yesterday)
>
>Heh heh. I was going to ask him what age uses happily spend the time
>rebooting, reinstalling, and working around problems that their OS imposes
>at random times for random reasons.
I use Windows and do none of this....
>I'm more than happy to spend hours setting something up, so long as it
>stays set up when I'm done with it. It's the black hole that sucks down
>endless hours of re-setting (pun intended) that made me move from Windows
>to Linux.
There are very few things I'm willing to spend hours working on unless
I am getting paid to do so. Maybe it all comes down to wanting more
out of life than a man page and a stack of how-to's.
I'd rather spend hours using my software instead of hours setting it
up.
------------------------------
From: abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before
you do .......
Date: 18 Jun 2000 19:54:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Good in theory and warm fuzzies but exactly the reason why Linux is
> not generating any real interest.
> 1. People don't know how to take charge of their computers.
Thats because people in general are lazy and stupid.
> Sure IT people do,
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
I'm sorry, I always do that whenever someone says "IT". :)
I can see that you certianly know what youre talking about.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 18 Jun 2000 19:58:40 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:06:48 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:35:06 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The only people who seem to dislike X, are those that don't know X. Yes,
>>> >it is not as fast as it could be, but it is pretty fast. Accelerated
>>> >versions of X are quite fast.
>>> >
>>> >What is X?
>>>
>>> I'm going to forward a copy of this message to my grandmother and see
>>> what she thinks of X. The amount of the market that actually cares
>>> about such things is very small. My grandmother (and her friends) make
>>> up the other 90% Which market do you want?
>>
>>We want an OS that is not dumbed down to your grandmother.
> and that's why Turbo Linux and Corel are laying off people. There
> isn't a big enough market for even one Linux company.
You do not understand what 'market' is, nor why turbo linux or corel
are laying people off.
>>>
>>>
>>> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>>> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>>
>>X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
>>be beautiful or ugly.
> KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
> Mac.
This is actually true (in one special case)..why dont you amaze the
class by telling us what that one special case is and why its true?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:00:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
: people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
: instead.
: So where are all of these folks?
In every important business in the world, for starters. Including
Microsoft.
: Last count it was .3 percent of the market. WebTV did better. Win2k
: did better. Virtually everyone did better than this great "savior of
: operating systems".
Your numbers are laughable, but even if Linux were not becoming
immensely popular, it is still one of the best OSen available for
PC-class hardware, by ANY measure of what constitutes "good" (as
opposed to "popular." It already was before the current wave of
popularity, and it will continue to be even if something different
comes around to supplant it.
: Why is this?
: The figures speak for themselves and again I ask "Where are all of
: these users?"
Everyone with a Web browser (even that abomination called IE) uses
Linux and Unix primarily when browsing the Web. Everyone with an
E-mail client uses Linux and Unix primarily when sending and reciving
E-mail. They may not know it. But Windows is primarily a Linux/Unix
client. It doesn't have the balls to do real computing. And lots of
folks, myself included, have discovered that Linux makes a better
client / front end platform as well.
: I know many people who have TRIED Linux, I don't know of ONE who has
: STAYED with Linux. Not a single soul.
When you finally graduate from junior high, chances are you will.
: Corel just laid off a couple of hundred workers.
: They can't even produce a native Linux Office Suite that doesn't
: depend on Win libraries via WINE.
Corel's problems are not Linux-related, but its survival (if it
survives) will be.
: TurboLinux (backed by IBM $$$$) did the same.
: So what gives here?
: Seems to me the Linux FAD is going the way of the Pet Rock and
: Hoola-Hoop.
Spoken in True Believer fashion, from a Linux/Unix client machine,
onto a Linux/Unix-based Internet, into an audience the vast majority
of whom (Winvocates included) know that you're full of festering
horseshit.
No one would be paying you to trash Linux if they didn't feel
threatened by it.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:59:23 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:03:19 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
>> and you're not gonna have much fun.
>
>It's only a lie if someone actually says it. I've never heard anyone pushing 386s
>for KDE and
>Netscape, have you?
Well, when you say Linux can run on a 386 most people expect it to be
just like it would be on a P3-550. After all, Windows 98 will run on a
386 too. Boot to dos mode and you can actually do something useful.
>> Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
>> how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
>> removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
>
>That's true. But is it a reason to cripple the power users?
I don't think Microsoft has. Lets assume a power user wants access to
decent command line tools... cmd.exe plus a ton off freeware tools
works very well. Lets assume a power user wants a customized UI, there
are many free shell replacements for Windows... some are quite good.
There are countless tweaks for the basic UI as well.
Lets assume a power user wants control over very obsurce parts of his
sytem. Regedit will let you change almost anything. Lets assume a
power user wants to write scripts to save time. You could use batch
files, WSH, perl, etc.
I consider myself a power user and there are very few things I can't
do with NT.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:14:31 GMT
Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Would you take advice from a Ford salesman, trying to convince you
: that Honda's were crap ?
There is an old saying that "if you want to know all the dirt on ___, ask
their enemy ___ . . . but don't trust either one!"
Joe
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:10:57 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:38:10 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
wrote:
>It was the Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:04:59 -0400...
>...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
>> >be beautiful or ugly.
>>
>> KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
>> Mac.
>
>How pathetic... Is that the best you can do? Complain about fonts?
Fonts are the most basic and most universal problem of Linux window
managers. I mention it fist because it's one of the most annoying
issues. KDE is a Windows 9x UI clone and not a very good one at that.
The BeOS UI and the Mac OS UI are both much better.
The other problems with windows managers is their lack of integrated
tools. KDE seems to have tried to clone the Win9x UI in this respect
but again, not very well. I expect a UI to be more than just a window
manager. It should be the graphical representation of the OS itself.
Maybe KDE is though... an ugly clone of a sub par UI with almost no
attention paid to usability and little (if any) consistency.
The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:11:29 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:50:49 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Especially when it took me all of about 3 minutes to install true-type
>fonts and now KDE can use them.
They looked just as ugly for me.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:13:09 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:05:50 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Heh heh. I was going to ask him what age uses happily spend the time
> >rebooting, reinstalling, and working around problems that their OS imposes
> >at random times for random reasons.
>
> I use Windows and do none of this....
Good for you. Odd that your experience differs from what so many of the rest
of us see, though.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:03:19 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Szarka wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
> >> and you're not gonna have much fun.
> >
> >It's only a lie if someone actually says it. I've never heard anyone pushing 386s
>for KDE and
> >Netscape, have you?
>
> Well, when you say Linux can run on a 386 most people expect it to be
> just like it would be on a P3-550.
Only a fool would think so. People that recommend Linux on old machines generally
recommend them
for very specific kinds of service, such as file servers.
Oddly enough, the only people that conclude that Linux should scream on a 386 is the
anti-Linux
crowd, how can't find enough valid criticisms, and therefore have to resort to
fantasies.
Oh, yeah. You still haven't pointed out the lie.
> After all, Windows 98 will run on a
> 386 too. Boot to dos mode and you can actually do something useful.
Mmmm. Most people, including WinTrolls, don't confuse DOS with Windows. Yeah, we all
know that
Bill was lying when he said Windows didn't run on DOS anymore, but we still don't say
we're
running Windows when we boot to DOS.
You're really having to stretch it today. You should take a break until you think of
something
challenging.
> >> Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
> >> how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
> >> removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
> >
> >That's true. But is it a reason to cripple the power users?
>
> I don't think Microsoft has. Lets assume a power user wants access to
> decent command line tools... cmd.exe plus a ton off freeware tools
> works very well. Lets assume a power user wants a customized UI, there
> are many free shell replacements for Windows... some are quite good.
> There are countless tweaks for the basic UI as well.
Yeah, if you download enough GNUware you can turn your Windows into a pseudo-Linux,
the only
differences being that it's slower, less portable, more expensive, and you still have
to reboot
and reinstall regularly.
If you want a pseudo-Linux, why not go for the real thing?
> I consider myself a power user and there are very few things I can't
> do with NT.
Recompiled the kernel to free up the resources from any unneeded features lately?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:41:44 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Answer what question? You had no question directed to me. Your posting
provided evidence supporting my position and I was acknowleging it.
Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5x_25.7144$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8igu96$tb2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
> > > LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT
4.
> >
> > Once again Microsoft's dogma is crushed on the heel of reality. I
wonder
> if
> > the Microsoft supporters will be mature enough to give you a tip of the
> hat
> > for that fact?
> >
> Next time try answering the question, instead of spouting BS.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:23:26 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:03:14 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I'm going to forward a copy of this message to my grandmother and see
>> >> what she thinks of X. The amount of the market that actually cares
>> >> about such things is very small. My grandmother (and her friends) make
>> >> up the other 90% Which market do you want?
>
>Why on earth would your grandmother want to know about software design.
>This post was intended to show the technical difference between two
>methodologies. The same bogus statement can be made were one to describe
>the difference between 98SE an W2k.
That's my point. She doesn't care. Linux zealots (advocates if you
like) spend so much time telling people why they *have* to use Linux
and NO ONE cares the least bit that X is some magical bit of a code
for nuts around the globe to embrace and celebrate.
>> >
>> >We want an OS that is not dumbed down to your grandmother.
>>
>> and that's why Turbo Linux and Corel are laying off people. There
>> isn't a big enough market for even one Linux company.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>> >> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>
>But X isn't ugly. X is the device driver, not the code which does the
>presentation. As for fonts, there are many very good fonts for X. X,
>btw, isn't the fastest display technology, sure, but it is hard to
>characterize it as slow.
You know what I consider slow? When I scroll in Netscape and I see the
page fliker. That's ugly and slow. They reason why everyone blames X
is because none of the window managers are nearly as fast as the
Windows UI. The only common link is X. I don't care what the exact
reason is. Either it needs to be fixed or people need to stop
promoting Linux as the second coming of Jebus for the consumers.
KDE exists to apeal to a desktop user. Since it clones the Windows UI
we'll assume it is meant to apeal to a Windows desktop user. For
whatever reason, it's slow and ugly. It has been slow and ugly for
years now. If Linux was only going after the server market it wouldn't
be a big deal... they're not. KDE is a consumer level product and it's
just not very good. (for whatever reason)
Is X better than MS TS? Maybe. I don't know/care. TS works great for
doing remote administratoin of my servers.
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Synthetic Speach on Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:33:13 +0100
Daniel Mendyke wrote:
>
> Several years ago a friend showed me an application
> running on his Amiga that would read a standard
> text file and 'attempt' to read it over the systems
> speakers. (Naturally it sounded like a mechanical
> computer)
Amiga Say - really k3wl program :)
> Is there such a program for Linux?
A search for speech on freshmeat
(http://freshmeat.net/search.php3?query=speech) turned up these:
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/08/03/933698697.html
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/2000/05/10/958004091.html
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/05/01/925546651.html
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1998/11/01/909919931.html
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/05/22/927391364.html
> -Daniel
>
> -- Remove the 'nospam.' from my email address.
> My correct address is 'daniel AT clacknet dot com'
--
David Dorward
http://www.dorward.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:40:24 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:03:26 -0400, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Windows:
>
> Put the CD in.
> Close it.
> Click on its icon in "My Computer".
>
> Simple. It works. Does it work on Linux? No.
Funny you should mention that. I bought a Microsoft Sidwinder
Precision Pro joystick the other day. When I went to install the
driver off the CD, I put it in the drive, autorun kicked in and...
*HONK* (My error sound)
"This program has performed an illegal blah blah blah". Ho hum...
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Good Work Mozilla..
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:40:24 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:11:36 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know why the Mozilla CVS is so frigging slow? My checkout
> attempts always get stuck after a couple hundred files updated.
That's odd, I never really have that problem. Do you get a lot of
"waiting for cvsuser lock" or some-such messages? They cause the
update to stop for 30 seconds each time. Also, try this script:
cvs co mozilla/client.mak
cvs co mozilla/config
cd mozilla
make -f client.mk checkout
It assumes you already have a source tree though.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:40:25 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:10:51 GMT, Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what about the embedded market? Tivo runs Linux. I'm sure there
> are others out there. I saw an X-windows cursor on a Netscape terminal
> on the NJ turnpike. The cursor was the only way I knew that they
> had Linux underneith. The machine only let you touch the browser.
Err...no. All you knew was that X was running. It could have been on
Linux, Free/Open/whateverBSD etc. etc.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:40:27 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:16:51 +1200, Lawrence D�Oliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Psst...your newsreader's broken. Why doesn't it use "Reference:"?
> Thus it is quite clear that this "feature" of referring to an object on
> a removable filesystem by different names on different systems is in
> fact a drawback, since it doesn't allow you to store stable object
> references on that volume, or indeed on any other.
The system does have that slight disadvantage, but I can't see it being
that much of a hassle. Just so long as /etc/fstab is set up properly,
both KFM and GNOME can pick up what removable drives you have IIRC. I
have to ask why you would want to hard-code something like removable
drives.
Despite the drawback, the unix filesystem has large advantages. For
example, suppose you have a "public files" directory (/pub on my
system) on your hard disk which takes up a lot of space. Your hard
disk starts to get full and you want to find a way of freeing up space
with the minimum of hassle. Here's what I did:
1) Buy new hard disk
2) Install, partition and format
3) mount under /mnt/pub
4) cp -a /pub/ /mnt/pub/
5) Put "/dev/hdc2 /pub ext2 defaults 0 2" in /etc/fstab
6) rm -rf /pub/*
7) umount /mnt/pub
8) mount /pub
OK, that seems like a lot of fuss, but it means the people on my home
network didn't notice any change in the network and I didn't have to
alter any scripts, reinstall any programs that are in /pub (Like my
Mozilla tree) or change any settings.
May I ask what you would do in a similar situation? Oh, and while you
think about it, nag whoever maintains your newsreader to fix it.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:40:27 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:30:32 +1200, Lawrence D�Oliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That proves my point: on Windows and UNIX systems, there is no stable
> form of reference that you can use that works the same from one system
> to another, or even one drive to another. On the Mac, the pathname "My
> Photos:Fred the Cat" is still valid whether you put the CD in the CD-ROM
> drive or in the CD writer.
What happens when there are namespace conflicts?
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:04:51 +1000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ABJ25.3969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > My real question is why do we Windows users have to put up with the
old,
> > > outdated, kludgey and quite honestly crap system of identifying
volumes by
> > > drive letter that Windows STILL uses? Legacy apps be damned, the
longer
> > it's
> > > left the way it is, the harder it will be to switch to a vaguely more
> > modern
> > > system.
> >
> > Because when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
> > yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one
letter
> > volume names.
>
> I dare you to change the drive that your system root resides on to a
> different letter.
What do I win if it works ? :D
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
