Linux-Advocacy Digest #663, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Powered by LINUX (MerefBast)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Powered by LINUX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (david raoul derbes)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Bob Lyday)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Arthur
Frain)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (david
raoul derbes)
Help! Plugger 3.2 does not work correctly, and I don't give a shit! (Douglas D.
Anderson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:31:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > It's funny how many people forget *why* things were so bad during
> > Carter's Presidency.
> >
> > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
>
> ...Democrat...
Democrat and Republican. Five years of Johnson, five years of Nixon.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:32:31 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> >We might never achieve full agreement, but we might narrow the
> >disagreement.
> >
>
> Sure, but we are way off on a tangent. We are supposed to be
> discussing OS's. Do you think things would have worked out differently
> if they had cheap Linux PC's back then??
>
If you believe that this thread is too far off topic, feel free to
flame me by email :-).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:41:45 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On what grounds do you make the claim that "basic reading, writing,
> mathematics and history" have suffered ?
Not that I think it was for the reasons he said that they are suffering, but
one only has to look at the countless people graduating from High Schools in
the country that can't even read at an adult level to know that something is
seriously wrong. Lack of money likely isn't it either... I think it's
probably more like sorry misuse of funds by the school boards.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
Adolescence is a surreal world: kids who don helmets and practice banging into
one another for hours each week are deemed healthy and wholesome, even heroic.
Geeks are branded strange and anti-social for building and participating in
one
of the world's truly revolutionary new cultures - the Internet and the World
Wide Web. -- Jon Katz / Slashdot.org
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:52:09 GMT
> >As for feudalism, during the latter stages of European feudalism,
>
> Note that you're talking about "the latter stages".
These "latter stages" of feudalism also happen to be
the perception of feudalism in the modern mind.
> I never accused Aaron of this. Your implicit assumption that I did is
> pure illogic.
Then what, precisely, were you accusing him of?
My dictionary isn't really very helpful. Were
you accusing him of promoting a system whereby
individuals swore fealty to their lords?
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MerefBast)
Subject: Powered by LINUX
Date: 27 Aug 2000 00:59:29 GMT
Hi.
I am putting together a comparison list of which major
businesses and organizations use which operating systems for
their web servers (at
<http://www.OperatingSystems.net/system/internet/internet.htm>.
So, I am asking for fans or users of Linux
to provide verifiable accounts of businesses or organizations that
use Linux for their web servers. Verifiable means
something such as a URL to a web page on their site that says
"powered by..." or e-mail from the web master or other employee
of the business or organization. Major means easily and widely
recognizeable businesses or organizations.
Please send a courtesy copy of your information to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Thanks...
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:14:57 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> And you want my taxes to pay for vouchers for that shit? No way.
As someone who started out in public schools, then switched to private school,
I can say without a doubt that the education I got at the private school was
_much_ better then I could've gotten in the public system. My parents
sacrificed a lot for my sister and I (and we both let them know that we
appreciate what they did) to go to private school. I have plenty of friends
that went to public school that wish they could've also gone to private school
and talk about how bad they were/are.
BTW, I think the proper system would be to give a tax credit for someone that
sends their kids to private schools.. which wouldn't cost you anything in
taxes.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
Of course, all mission critical synergistically enhanced corporate package
data
mining and report generating suites need upgrade paths to facilitate corporate
executive migrations. -- stolen from a /. post 4/26/99
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Powered by LINUX
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:32:43 -0500
"MerefBast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi.
>
> I am putting together a comparison list of which major
> businesses and organizations use which operating systems for
> their web servers (at
> <http://www.OperatingSystems.net/system/internet/internet.htm>.
Your comment on Hotmail is entirely out of line. MS started the conversion
about a month ago (not several months) and is now done (or at least so far
completed that sites like Netcraft do not seem to ever return FreeBSD any
more after dozens of tries). Any idea how long it takes to convert hundreds
of servers?
For reference, see http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ which was publised at the
beginning of this month (August) and states:
"HotMail has commenced its much awaited migration to a Microsoft operating
system. Some Windows 2000 machines have recently been moved into the load
balancing pool, with currently between 90-95% of requests being served by
the established FreeBSD/Apache platform, and 5-10% from Windows 2000. The
Hotmail site infrastructure is enormous, and even if everything runs
smoothly, a migration will likely take several weeks. "
Here it is, almost 4 weeks later and the conversion seems to be complete.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:27:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> Courageous
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
>> > > Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
>> > > Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them...
>> >
>> > You are woefully confused about certain things, like the
>> > order in which certain Presidents were elected, for example.
>>
>> The Vietnam War was expanded in the '60s, ran through '73, and the
>> payments on it were stalled until after Ford lost in 1976, dropping the
>> financial issues for it into Carter's lap.
>
>The Vietnam War was DEMOCRAT Johnson's baby.
>
>In case you don't recall...
> REPUBLICAN Nixon got us ***OUT*** of that boondoggle.
>
>>
>> The Energy Crisis was during Carter's Presidency.
>
>The OPEC embargo lasted less than 6 months.
>
>>
>> The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
>> Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
>
>They hostages were in captivity for 444 days.
>
>They were released shortly after the election....only about
>180 days after Reagan secured enough primary delegates.
The hostages were released within *minutes* of Reagan taking the oath
of office. Those of us who were adults in 1980 remember this very, very
well. Most of the networks had to do a split screen of the jet taking
off from the Tehran airport and Reagan's inaugural address.
The mullahs were so angry at Carter for the abortive hostage rescue
that they were never, ever going to release their captives so long
as Carter was president.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>What about the preceeding 260 days ***BEFORE** Reagan became
>the nominee-apparent?
>
>Why couldn't Carter accomplish in 9 MONTHS AS PRESIDENT what
>Reagan supposedly accomplished in 6 months as a mere nominee???
>
>Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Now which part to you think I got wrong, and why?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
>
>
>--
>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"
>
>J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:31:55 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> david raoul derbes wrote:
>
> > In Europe, the crime rate is lower, and coincidentally, there is health
> > insurance for everyone, and (usually) a much lower unemployment rate.
> >
> > But these things are entirely coincidental, yes?
>
> Now that's some seriously screwed up (and incorrect) logic. Just because you
> have A and B, by no means shows that A exists because of B.
>
BTW, a number of studies have found that the more socialism you have
in a system, the lower the crime rate. This is not an exact
relationship but when averaged together, it definitely shows up.
Oh, yes, and societies with socialized medicine generally have
superior health figures than those who do not. Once again, a general
relationship but it still holds, even amongst states in India and
Central American countries. As an example, for many years, Cuba had
the best health figures in all Latin America. Costa Rica was often
second but then they have had a social democracy since after the war.
--
Bob
Microsoft.com corrupt! Boot Chairman Bill? (Y/Y)
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:01:27 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Personally, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have fundamental
> disagreements with their religious dogma.
> However, given a choice, I would send my kids to a Catholic school
> before sending them to a public school.
Then why did you choose Purdue over a perfectly good
nearby Catholic school like Notre Dame?
> Sending a kid to a public school these days is child abuse.
So by attending Purdue you are practicing self-abuse?
Arthur
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:38:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
>> So, IOW, instead of a simple concept of people being able to do what
>> they want with their property, you favor the government arbitrarily
>> taking what it wants and letting people keep some percentage of their
>> own property -- with the actual percentage depending on which political
>> goal is in vogue at that moment?
>
>What's worse about his example is that the money that was initially earned to
>buy that farm was taxed, the property was taxed, his relatives had to pay tax
>on the inheritence and now he has to yet again. How _anyone_ can see that as
>fair is what I want to know.
I admit that it is trying (the farm in question was put together over
sixty years of hard work by my uncle; he paid tax on every dollar before
he invested those dollars in the farm (tax 1); he paid property tax on
the farm while he owned it (tax 2); he paid income tax on the profits
of the crops (tax 3); he and his wife, my mother's sister, died in
1981, and my mother inherited half the farm. She had to find, over
ten years, nearly half a million dollars in inheritance tax (tax 4).
If, God forbid, she had died within ten years and willed it to my
sister and me, we would have been spared tax 5. However, she died
nineteen years after, so my sister and I will need to find yet more
money for the second round of inheritance tax (tax 5).
While I admit that this seems to me excessive, the law is the law,
and my family will obey it.
The good news is that my mother gave away half of it to me and my
sister while she was alive, so the tax base is only half of what it
was nineteen years ago. It's still going to be quite a bit of money,
I fear.
This government has the right to levy taxes. I think that they could
be more fair. Frankly, I am not sure how to achieve fairness, and it
may be that I'd do even worse if the laws were made more equitable.
Better to have something on which to pay taxes, of course, than to
not have anything at all, like many, many people in this country.
My sister and I try to count our blessings, which are many...
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>--
>Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
>"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption]
> would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
>-- Bill Gates from "The Road Ahead," p. 265.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas D. Anderson)
Crossposted-To: alt.tasteless.jokes
Subject: Help! Plugger 3.2 does not work correctly, and I don't give a shit!
Date: 27 Aug 2000 01:40:30 GMT
I've got Plugger 3.2 apparently correctly installed, and when I open
Netscape Communicator 4.72 and check plugins under 'Help', it reports
all of the enabled Plugger options, (I'm using SuSE Linux 6.4 since
June 1) everything looks good, but when I try to use some of the
functions, such as trying to view a Quicktime video, some of these come
out really fucked up, and I start laughing, like it was funny. Does
anyone else have a similar problem?
Doug Anderson
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:38:33 -0400
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them arms in a
> technically-treasonous exchange, and Carter admitted to having lust in
> his heart for women, versus Reagan's denial of same (while not
> mentioning that his daughter was conceived out of wedlock, and he was
> sleeping with Nancy while he was still married to Jane Wyman).
If I remember correctly the first thing Reagan did was seize Iranian
assests, although minute details escape me on that. The first thing Iran did
was free the hostages....hmmm...
And the bombing of Kadafi's HOUSE was a classic "you wanna fuck with me!?"
exchange.
There was never a finer President in recent history.
BTW - He denies any knowledge of arms deals. :-)
Besides his international dealings were all superb, why question the
details.
> The economy was starting to pull out of it, Reagan got elected, and
> while he was still formulating policy, Carter's economic strategies
> started to take hold. Three or four years later, Reagan's policies took
> effect, and we had the mid-80s recession.
No it wasn't "just starting to pull out" it took three years.
> So tell us again why you thought Carter was a dud as President?
He thought all the answers were to be found with MORE government.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:58:55 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mZTp5.18778$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Today we have Java VMs and Adobe Acrobat viewers, and browsers, and
browser
> plug-ins, word processing packages, and stock tickers, Internet based
games,
> etc. Never mind that we are going to be configuring systems to connect
with
> other systems, and use databases, and database clients, and we need to set
> up security, and down load the new versions of our clients, etc.
>
> It isn't going to be simple in the future. It is going to get worse. In
> another post I list a set of requirements we are going to need from a
> package manager. Not want, need. Typewriters are out for good. And
> Redmond may be at fault to some degree, but if so they only pushed us
ahead
> in time a bit. It was going to happen to us anyway.
>
> We have to have package managers, but they need to be based on open
> standards.
Are you saying that the Linux package managers are not open?
> And they need to operate in an environment outside the execution
> environment of the supported computer systems. They need to be able to
> manage cross platform, distributed applications.
Just what do you mean by that? It sound like a lot of empty talk devoid of
real meaning.
> Why? Because we are on
> the Internet already!
What does that have to do with software installation procedures?
> We want to bank, we want to order hamburgers on the
> Interstate Hwy so I don't wait for my order! I want to use my PDA to
adjust
> my lights in my hotel (cause I don't know where the switches are, but I
have
> my PDA), I want to listen to my MP3 files on the rental car's stereo, from
> the station I programmed on the Internet.
Speak of your desires and do not attribute them to others. Still I ask,
what does that have to do with software installation procedures?
By the way, do you know what it means to program a station? I don't think
you do, or else you would not have used, "the station I programmed on the
Internet", since it does not belong in this discussion.
> We can't do all of this by coping all our files onto our bin directory.
I never mentioned anythng about copying anything into bin. I never even
mentioned bin. Further, I would never suggest putting ALL our files into
bin let alone onto bin. The installation method has nothing to do with what
the software can do once it is installed.
You are begining to sound like a person how has come up with a half baked
idea to solve a problem that does not exist and is now trying to convince
others that they have a problem so that your can sell them your solution for
it. Yes sir you have trouble right here in River City!
> Sorry.
Yes you are. :-)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:05:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> You've got it exactly backwards. Raw storage is just numbered blocks
> on the disk. Filesystems are an abstraction created by the OS. There
> is no "structured storage" without the OS. Without the OS, the highest
> leve of abstraction is about at the level of instructing the SCSI
> controller to fetch block 123456 from device 0 on buss 0. Managing
> storage is one of the most important tasks of the OS, why re-create it
> inside your installation tool? What does that have to do with making
> installation and system management easier?
For some devices the data is stored as numbered fixed length blocks. For
other devices it is not even that structured, just a continuious stream of
bytes or bits.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:41:38 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fNTp5.18776$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What is the deal here? I write a post or two that claims that we can
manage
> computer systems directly, on their storage, outside the abstractions of
the
> Operating Systems and their Services. I claim that these abstractions and
> services simply clutter up the configuration management tasks and get in
the
> way, cause problems, and waste our time.
Without the abstrations the the OSs impose on DASDs (Since that is the type
of storage devices that seem to concern you), your would have to be deal
with fixed size records where one record is one sector. You would have to
determine into which sectors to place you data. You would then have to
refer the the files by the address of the first sector and the number of
sectors you have set aside for it. If the file out grows that space you
have allocated for it, you would have to allocate an additional extent for
it then your programs would have to be informed and account of the multiple
extents when processing the file. Is that what you are really proposing?
That is what your wording would call for.
> Get over XML already! There is no magic, it is just a means of defining
> structured data, and translations of structured data from one form to
> another! Tagged file formats have been around since the late 60's! No
> magic!
Thank you for supporting my position.
> Would it make you happier if we quit talking about XML and said we would
> hold the configuration information in TIFF files instead? Those are
tagged
> files too, and they handle binary! Who even cares, already!
You seem to care, for some strange reason.
> You want to claim that the storage in a computer system is so complex, and
> applications are so mysterious that it can't be defined using a simple
> format for structured data.
There you go again! While all programs can be stored on disk as data, not
all data are programs. You seems to be suggesting again that you idea of
structured data can some how replace programs. And that the programs should
be platform independent at the executable level. I do hope you are
experience enough to see the fault in that logic and so why that can not be.
> It isn't magic, it is just simple structured
> data.
Oxymoron.
>You want to claim we can't have cross platform installation
> facilities because of what? The complexity?
I have made no such claims.
> Well I have news for you. If you are a developer, you are a sad one,
> because you should know and understand that there isn't much complexity at
> the storage level. Files, Directories, and some attributes.
Do you realize ehat "the storage level" means? That is at the hardware
level. At the hardware level that are no files, directories, or attributes;
there are only way of encoding bits or bytes which are (in the case of
DASD's) offered to the system in the form of fixed length blocks named
sectors.
> That's it.
> Very simple, Very structured.
Oxymoron!
> The only problem I can see is the possiblity
> that Operating Systems are magic, but I don't believe in magic.
Pardon?
> XML isn't magic, it is just good at describing structured data.
Again, thank you for supporting my position.
> And storage is just structured data, nothing more, no magic.
See above.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:35:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%pTp5.18774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Oh, so all those hours I spent installing stuff on Solaris was really
> Windows?
Does Solaris use Microsoft Windows terminology that you have used in this
thread? If any of us have made a error as the the platforms you are used to
using, it is as a result of the terminology that you have selected to use to
present your ideas.
> The point is that we need to get over the idea that installing is part of
> the abstractions that the OS provides. That mindset prevents us from
> developing technologies (such as those I am describing here) that can
> install across platforms.
Technologies that already exist, assuming that the latest permutation of
your position is what you are really proposing.
The are many things that don't map well or at all from one OS to another.
How would you handle those details?
Consider file and directory attributes and permission settings. They don't
map from one OS to another very well. The installation process needs to be
OS specific in this and in many other areas.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
