Linux-Advocacy Digest #592, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Linux development process model documented? (Michael W. Godfrey)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Phill)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux code going down hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (David Dorward)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Certifications on the internet by Brainbench? ("mmm007")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I had a reality check today :( (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: License? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux development process model documented? ("ne...")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OFFICIAL (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael W. Godfrey)
Subject: Linux development process model documented?
Date: 11 Jul 2000 14:43:20 GMT
Hello folks.
I'm a Linux user since 0.99pl15 and I've even done a bit of research on
some aspects of the linux kernel (see http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~migod/papers/
if you're interested), 'tho I've never been a kernel hacker.
What I'm looking for is a good explanation from someone who knows what
they're talking about of the development process model (ie how the code is
written and approved) for contributions. I am not looking to contribute
any code myself, I'd just like a fairly detailed explanation as to how it
happens.
I'd like to know, for example, how many people look at contributed code,
how the "chain of command" works, what and where flexibility is.
Let's say I have
(a) a skeleton of a driver for a new piece of hardware that provides
some real functionality but is far from complete.
(b) a more or less complete driver for a new piece of hardware.
(c) some "performance improvements" to existing core i386 kernel code.
(d) some new features to a central, stable piece of code
(e) some bug fixes to a central piece of code.
How would each of these likely be handled? Is this well documented
somewhere?
Is the non-i386 kernel code (ie in the arch subsystems) maintained
differently by different people? Who (in general) has say over these
paths?
Enlightenment much appreciated (also pointers to a better place to submit
this posting, if one exists).
Thanks very much.
-- Mike G.
--
Michael Godfrey PhD, Assistant Professor
Univ of Waterloo, Dept of Computer Science
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~migod
------------------------------
From: Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:09:05 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> > laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> > toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> > better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> > Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> > to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> > would agree with you.
>
> Ah but there are a few, they're here in COLA. They've asked me to modify
> my statement, so it becomes:
>
> Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
> Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
>
> I believe there are (many?) other areas, but that's my opinion.
Try modifying to:
1) Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware support (those pesky Linux
people tend to test their drivers before committing them to a stable
release unlike those brave hero's that are the windows driver writers)
2) Linux desktop lags behind Windows in terms of "ease of use" for a
windows user. However, the flexibility that X provides far more features
than Windows can achieve at this time.
I think that you'd better take a reality check on the consistency of the
Win interface, is it really easy to use? Easier than Linux maybe (??),
but it takes perhaps as much time to learn. It is far too easy to
dislike something because it is "different" than to be objective (the
reason I say this is that I'm teaching a few new people to use Windows,
and M$ makes it hard going I can tell you IMHO!).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 10:18:12 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>X wouldn't exist at all if it had to be GPL'd. Nor would most
>>of the things that use it.
>
>It seems reasonable to assume that no software would exist if it *had*
>to be GPL'd. Nevertheless, indications are strong that someday, almost
>all software will be voluntarily GPL'd.
Do you mean after all patents expire?
>Once a preponderance of
>developers are using GPL code, then even if reference implementations do
>get GPL'd, it won't make a difference. Because by that point, nobody
>would consider taking the open source reference implementation and
>trying to make profit on owning it to begin with.
If that ever really happens I think we will miss the developments
from companies like Cisco and Sun.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:07:05 GMT
> >> If you do not know exactly why you need solaris, then you do not
> >> need solaris.
> >
> > What does that mean? If you don't know what you need any software
> > for, you probably don't need it.
> >
>
> Explain 70 million windows users.
Well, you need something to run AOL and solitare.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:07:03 +0100
>>>I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and has
>>>many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
>>>point out the end-user features available on Windows not available on
>>>Linux?
>>The ability of Macrocrap to "rent" you the software periodically.
>>Forcing you to pay over and over and over.
>Um, Yahoo Messenger. Um, ICQ. LOL.
There are clients for the Yahoo Messenger service, as well as ICQ, AOL,
and MSN. Search on www.freshmeat.net for find them.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Privilege and Confidentiality Notice.
This e-mail and any attachments to it are intended only for the party to
whom they are addressed. They may contain privileged and/or confidential
information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete any digital copies and destroy any paper
copies.
Thank you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 14:34:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding) writes:
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You do realize that X exists almost entirely because of funding from
>> the vendors that released it in commercial forms, don't you?
>
> Yes. And indeed I don't believe that the base X distribution should be
> copyleft. I'm just considering that maybe the XFree86 code should.
>
Why? Alot of XFree86 is also being fund by commercial firms. There
are alot of hobbiests, but a synergy between the free world (like
MIT or BSD copyrights) and commercial code is MUCH better than
being limited by militancy.
John
------------------------------
From: "mmm007" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Certifications on the internet by Brainbench?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:24:18 -0400
A friend of mine just took the Linux Administrator certification exam by
Brainbench. She said it was really hard. have any of your taken these
exams? What do you think of them? I'd rather not take it unless it is
worthwhile.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 08:03:39 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> > laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> > toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> > better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> > Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> > to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> > would agree with you.
>
> Ah but there are a few, they're here in COLA. They've asked me to modify
> my statement, so it becomes:
>
> Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
> Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
Aren't you the guy who had a problem with people lumping the term
'Windows' to include every OS Microsoft produces? Here you are doing
the same thing. Do you think Linux lags behind NT or W2K? The fact
is that Linux probably has as good hardware support as NT and better
hardware support than W2K. So I think your statement needs even
further clarification.
Also, how do I get Win9x to run on this Sparc Ultra 5 I'm typing this
message on? Linux can do it, as well as run on Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC,
etc, etc. My opinion is that Linux hardware support is _better_ than
Win9x, because it doesn't limit me to a single architecture. Maybe
you statement should actually be:
Linux lags behind Windows 9x in some x86 hardware products while
Windows 9x won't even run on any other platform, and the Linux desktop
lags behind Windows 9x on that same platform in a few areas, while
Linux can do things on the same platform that Windows couldn't dream
of doing.
There. That's better! :)
> I believe there are (many?) other areas, but that's my opinion.
Well, I think the same thing about Linux. To each his own.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Am I supposed to deny that
> happened at all just to support my personal belief that Linux is
> better? Well, I won't. I don't lie just to serve my views up.
> I tell the truth. If it hurts that bad, don't read it.
>
Shall we form the "I Like Linux, but work with Microsoft" club?
I think we are already both members of "stick to your guns, even
if they are pointed at you" club.
The truth can be very annoying at times.
My Opinion,
David Petticord
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:34:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:23:47 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>(I normally don't bother with his sort, but this is too
>tempting)
>
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>> Proov my point again why do'nt you? In UNIX you half to rite
>>your own programms
>
>Yup, thass riet. In Yew-Nikcs you half, butt inn Windose yoo fool!
>
>
>(May I enter the Wintroll contest now, pretty please?)
No, but you can enter the World's Worst Spelling Contest. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- though I think Tim Palmer's got you beat, though :-)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 08:10:02 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway, I created her an account on my Linux partition, mounted the
> > windows partition as a vfat drive, and copied all her Windows mail
> > over to her new Linux account. Voila! It worked perfectly! She can
> > read all her old mail and send mail just like she did under Windows.
>
>
> Incidentally, mind if I ask which mail client she'd been using in Win?
> And what you used to convert the mailboxes? (Assuming they were not
> already in "mbox" format... depending on your client of course.)
Netscape mail. I avoid Outlook like the plague. Someone passed along
the Pretty Park worm to my wife several months ago. At least when she
clicked on the attachment, no one else was passed the virus.
I encourage her to use Netscape because it runs on most platforms. As
such, I anticapated that if we ever get her a Mac or she starts using
Linux, that moving her mail from her Windows machine would be
relatively painless. I was right! :)
> I've got tons of old mail I'd saved in MSOE, some in Pegasus Mail, that
> go years back and I'd like to convert everything over to *nix-format
> mailboxes at some point.
Sorry, don't have a clue about Outlook, but I expect that you're going
to have a very difficult time. Microsoft doesn't tend to play nice
with 'NIX.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: License?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:42:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 10 Jul 2000 21:32:07 GMT <8kdfcn$2lfh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>darkstar51 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a Red Hat CD. Can I install it on company computers. Is there
>> any License Agreement that I might violate? The Network Manager keeps
>> swearing you have to have a license.
>>
>
>Your "network manager" is full of shit.
The network manager is IINM in fact correct; one has to have a license.
However, the GNU General Public License and its counterparts
(BSD, LPGL, and others) are extremely permissive, permitting any
number of copies without additional expenditures. Most of the stuff
on RedHat is covered thereby. Note that some of the licenses may
only be free for noncommercial use -- be careful!
(I will defer on the question of it being "free", as that's an
old debate on other threads, and, as I understand it, mostly
an issue for developers.)
I do wonder whether the pending decision -- who knows when it'll
happen? -- regarding Metallica and Napster will affect software
EULAs, and, if so, how.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux development process model documented?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:44:37 GMT
On Jul 11, 2000 at 14:43, Michael W. Godfrey eloquently wrote:
>
>Hello folks.
>
>I'm a Linux user since 0.99pl15 and I've even done a bit of research on
>some aspects of the linux kernel (see http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~migod/papers/
>if you're interested), 'tho I've never been a kernel hacker.
>
>What I'm looking for is a good explanation from someone who knows what
>they're talking about of the development process model (ie how the code is
>written and approved) for contributions. I am not looking to contribute
>any code myself, I'd just like a fairly detailed explanation as to how it
>happens.
>
>I'd like to know, for example, how many people look at contributed code,
>how the "chain of command" works, what and where flexibility is.
A good place to start would be
http://kt.linuxcare.com/kernel-traffic/index.epl
This gives good pointers to other spots for the
info you need.
[...]
--
Registered Linux User # 125653
I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy.
-- Fred Allen
[Also attributed to S. Clay Wilson. Ed.]
11:43am up 1 day, 14:55, 8 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 08:22:28 -0700
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pete. Your posts about how Linux lags behind Windows are amusing to me.
> Here's a little story about how Windows crapped out on me last night,
> and how Linux rescued me. Windows could have never done this.
>
> I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
> decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
> the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
> online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
> a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
> it...
>
> Anyway, I rebooted and began to restore my drivers. I came to my 3COM
> NIC driver and reinstalled it. What I forgot was that I had added this
> NIC myself; it didn't come with the computer. You can probably guess
> what happened next...
>
> I rebooted and was greeted with an Explorer page fault violation. My
> Windows partition is currently worthless now because I reinstalled a
> driver! The problem was that I had upgraded to IE 5.0 after I had
> added the NIC. Apparently, there is a dll conflict between these.
>
> I hadn't told my wife that I was "fixing" the computer, so when she
> found out she couldn't get to her mail, she was a little annoyed! :)
> Anyway, I created her an account on my Linux partition, mounted the
> windows partition as a vfat drive, and copied all her Windows mail
> over to her new Linux account. Voila! It worked perfectly! She can
> read all her old mail and send mail just like she did under Windows.
> This gives me a few days breathing room! ;-)
>
> There is no way Windows could have done this. First of all, Linux
> would never render a computer unbootable because I reinstalled a
> driver. Secondly, Windows would never be able to read an ext2
> partition the way Linux can read FAT32.
>
> So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> would agree with you.
>
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
> Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
> Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
Fixed it! After searching Deja for a few clues about this error, I
discovered the problem. Apparently, I needed to restore the file
comctl32.dll which came with IE 5.0. When I reran this file, it fixed
the problem. Windows runs a _lot_ faster now. I hadn't reinstalled
the registry since I got the computer over a year ago; i'm sure it was
a mess.
Win9x is such a kludge. It's may be simple to use at first, but it's
a disaster to fix and/or maintain. How anyone can claim it's easier
for the home user than Linux is beyond me. Sure, Linux is difficult
to set up, but so is Windows. At least with Linux you can't
completely hose your system as a regular user.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:50:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:13:18 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:16:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:02:42 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:19:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:44:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:26:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>when said peripheral is newish and uses a common,
>>>>>>>well-supported interface?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not at all established here actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An SBLive uses a common, well-supported interface but you don't
>>>>>> expect it to work in a G4 do you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, not THIS month, but I hold out hope for one of the next few
>>>>>months.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You would always try it under Yellow Dog... <snicker>
>>>
>>>Why? So I can run Linux on overpriced Mac hardware, rather than
>>>running the same thing (with much better support) on faster, cheaper
>>>Intel hardware?
>>
>> Actually, PPC is relatively well supported as a Linux platform.
>
>But not as good as Intel.
An interesting observation, but one wonders how well Microsoft
supports the PPC platform...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- besides, source code is source code :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:59:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 11 Jul 2000 10:20:40 EDT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>TimL wrote:
>
>> Ok it's official(for me).
>> Windows 2000 is a piece of SHIT!
>> I have a linux box and a Windows 2000 box.
>> My Linux box has been up and running for 13 days. I run memory
>> hog Mozilla from time to time on both. On Linux I always get all my
>> memory back, moreover, I can always see where ALL my memory is
>> with GNOME System Monitor or if all else fails "PS -Al". Right now
>> my Win2000 box shows a MEM usage of 244 MB and I have NOTHING
>> open and task manager gives NO indication of where all that memory
>> is spent. From a multi-billion $$ corporation that gets $300 for each
>> (legit :-) ) copy of this shit this is ridiculous.
>> Incidentally our network director gave a presentation the other day.
>> He has chosen a mix of Windows and Unix servers(i.e. I don't know
>> his bias) but claims MS has said they reccommend NT 4.0 be rebooted
>> every 4.6 days(probably generous) and Windows2000 every 30 days.
>> Hey Windows2000 may have all the moola but it ain't got all the smarts.
>>
>> /TimL
>
>This is a feature. A lot of inferior operating systems (non-Microsoft)
>will reuse memory, and therefore results in memory fragmentation and
>generally old, stale, tired memory. Microsoft Windows 2000, however, has
>the new MUO (tm) api which allows an application to reserve fresh memory
>every time. With Memory-Used-Once, users can be guaranteed of
>high-availability and low Total Cost of Ownership.
Careful; you'll be giving their marketing department ideas... :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "write once, read never again?"
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:06:47 -0400
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Similar experience here.
>
> And here. Eleven days ago, my logical partition E: disappeared.
> "UNKNOWN". Well, under Linux it was still there, FAT16 type
> (I run Win3.11 on top of DOS6.22, a hangover from my office
> days). So, using Linux, I just copied all my files from E: to another
> (DOS)
> partition, which DOS could see. And that is why, this time, my
> two hard disks are going to be turned over to Linux, with only
> a piddling bit left to Windoze so I can access my printer. Not
> overnight, but slowly, as I learn my way. I still would like
> to figure out how disk E: became "UNKNOWN" (according to
> DOS fdisk), and how I could restore it to FAT16 (as seen
> by DOS--Linux already sees it as FAT16, reads it, writes to it!)
>
I have two machines, and I'm seriously considering upgrading
the Lose98 box to SCSI, so that I can extend the SCSI bus over
to the other machine and recover filesystems.
> I had 18 months of painstakingly collected data there.
> Can *I* set my lawyers onto Mr Billy Goats? They would ask me
> for $10,000 up front. Ridiculous. So Mr Billy Goats can
> impunely stuff up my work, and I cannot do anything about it.
>
> (Will a WinTroll bite?)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
