Linux-Advocacy Digest #435, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 09:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 14:38:23 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vqs65$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >The OS would boot, he can only log on as root, and in read only mode.
>
> The filesystem initially mounts as read-only, and then it remounts
> as read-write during the normal boot process.
>
> It is a trivial matter to run fsck manually on a read-only file
> system and fix it. You do not need to attempt to install an
> OS which cannot read ext2 in order to fix an ext2 system. There's
> nothing to fix it with if you do.
>
> You do not login in 'read-only' mode in Linux.
I didn't deal with the linux at all, I'm reporting what he told me.
> >He doesn't have a floppy.
> >The slackeware CD in a non-bootable one.
>
> You previously said "he has a non-bootable CD, I think".
>
> >Win98 CD is a bootable one.
>
> This is a newly added claim.
>
> But according to you it was corrupted and wouldn't install
> properly.
One *file* inside a cab was corrupted.
> >One I'd win98 up & running, it was a matter of minutes to get the ext2
> >reader and back everything up.
>
> Which apparently took forever, more than one install, the CD
> was corrupted and the 'experienced' slackware user didn't use
> fsck to fix his filesystem, he decided to install a different
> OS which is not capable of fixing his filesystem. I just do
> not believe this tale.
'experienced'? When did I said that?
I said he use slackware 7.1 regulary.
There is a difference here.
> You also previously said that you installed the ext2 reader
> for Win98 to 'the fat 32 partition'. If you've got one of
> those already on the machine, then the slackware will be
> able to write to it - all you have to do is mount it.
As I've said, I didn't dealt with the linux problem.
According to him, it was a read only mode, and he couldn't mount another FS.
And no, I don't know any further details about it. Nor did I bother to find
out.
> Also, if you've got a Fat32 partition on the machine, you
> must have Win98 already on there, so why were you installing
> it again?
FDISK, heard about it?
> Or perhaps you might claim that you re-partitioned during
> this amazing installation, but then, you've destroyed the
> ext2 partition anyway.
It was another HD, as I clearly stated.
> In fact - _how_ are you installing win98 _without_ trashing
> the ext2 partition?
Another HD.
> What's more, you've said he could read the filesystem anyway,
> so what exactly does he need Win98 for? To read the filesystem
> he can already read?
To back it up so I can take the second HD and burn it.
> You had hours for the last one, and this response seems more
> than a little weak, although I'm impressed with the amount
> you've cut - it hides the number of times you've subtly
> changed the story by subsquently adding information.
I am on dial up, and it sucks.
I don't reply to posts and leave the entire post as it is, I only leave the
parts which I'm referring to.
Read netettique, btw, it might be helpful.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 14:39:57 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vqs5v$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >> 2. Why have another OS just to run the one or two Windows programs
that
> >you
> >> might need to use. I have been down this road. It's a real PITA to
have
> >to
> >> log into Windows just to get my mail. All of my real work is done on
AIX
> >and
> >> Linux.
> >
> >Aren't there email programs for linux? Why do you've to use windows to
check
> >your mail.
> >
> The thread was referring to Lotus Notes, a proprietary solution, and
> how much better it runs with wine+linux than on windows.
>
> It was not referring to email, but as you so correctly say, there are
> stacks of email solutions for linux.
I don't use lotus notes (and probably should be grateful for it, Interface
hall of shame has a dedicated page for it) but don't they use IMAPI?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:43:08 +0000
In article <8vqtv1$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:By3U5.2829$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vpf2i$5buf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> < ... >
>>
>> > > To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
>> > > Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
>> > > credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
>> >
>> > FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
>>
>> With all due respect, how do you come to that conclusion? My personal
>> experience is that FAT is utterly horrible. NTFS, is something i've only
>had
>> a few problems with. I've never had an ext2 FS failure, excepting an old
>1GB
>> drive that lunched itself.
>
>Personal conclustion.
>I've several cases of ext2 dying on me.
>I've never had a case of FAT or NTFS dying on me, and I have seen people
>abuse it to the full extent of the word.
>File getting corrupted, yes, but never the entire FS.
>
>
Your experience appears to be unique.
I recommend Debian GNU/Linux to anyone. One of the main
advantages of Linux over other OSs is that it has support for
a huge range of filesystems.
One of those filesystems is FAT, so if you believe the previous
poster (against all known evidence) that FAT is better than
ext2 - well, you can use it in Linux.
Linux - giving you the choices other OSs do not.
Mark
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:52:02 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
> > >Actually, no, I couldn't.
> > >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
> > >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
> >
> > You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
> > at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
> > some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
> > some such error.
>
> A lot of users are running as root.
> In nt/2000, you've to elevate your admin privileges in order to damage the
> registry, which is something an ignorant user simply is unlikely to do.
on the contrary, those who run their own unix-like system do not run
as root most of the time. they run as a regular user and become
super-user when they need to. in unix, su is quick and easy.
a lot of people run as admin in nt because of the lack of "su" type
facility. logging off and logging back in as admin is a large
annoyance; most people don't want the bother.
there are always plenty of ignorant users to go around, my money is on
more people (both absolute and proportional to user base) always
running nt with admin privileges than linux people living as root.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:59:50 +0000
In article <8vqtuv$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> >Actually, no, I couldn't.
>> >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
>> >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
>>
>> You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
>> at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
>> some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
>> some such error.
>
>A lot of users are running as root.
Which users are these? I'm not aware of any.
>In nt/2000, you've to elevate your admin privileges in order to damage the
>registry, which is something an ignorant user simply is unlikely to do.
*Who* has to do this - this would be the people running as admin
with maximum privileges all the time? Of course, if you go around
re-partitioning, then I can assume you run with max privileges all
the time.
If your users are that ignorant, you don't give them root passwords.
Nobody but myself has root passwords for my machines.
You've removed the start of this thread, which was that rm -r
in /etc would need root privileges. You go on later in this to
say that /etc got fully and totally trashed in your experience, and
then later corrected that to say that it really happened because
you re-partitioned the machine.
I'm glad you're not a linux advocate.
>
>
>> >"*Please Note*: A server-class installation will remove any existing
>> >partitions of any type on all existing hard drives of your system. All
>> >drives will be erased of all information and existing operating systems,
>> >regardless if they are Linux partitions or not."
>>
>> So if you know all this, why did you do it?
>
>Because I didn't know about it *at the time*
>Gee, it's so hard to rememer that?
I don't know because I wasn't there, so I didn't have to remember
it. Was it hard to remember?
Why were you installing a server setup on a multi-boot machine?
This is not sensible.
>
>> >Read what I said, it won't mount on other systems.
>> >I tried the rescue disk method, and it failed.
>> >The hardisk was find, I repartitioned it and it worked, no bad sectors.
>>
>> What do you mean by 'if failed'. Rescue disks can't fail, they
>> just boot. That's what they do. If you can't boot the
>> machine you've bigger problems than you're claiming already.
>
>rescue disk to boot.
>fschk, on one occasion I stopped it after 5 hours (4GB HD, about 3/4 full).
>The second & third time fschk itself failed to fix the system.
How did a rescue disk fail? They can't fail! They just boot. They
provide fresh copies of key filesystem management tools, often
statically linked, so that you can cp,mv, rm, fsck etc., work in
a ram based root filesystem etc etc.
If you had to repartition the disk, then everything else was trashed
anyway. Repartitioning seems to happen to you a lot, but not
to anyone else - why might this be?
Fsck does not take 5 hours on a 4Gb hd. That is a Windows speed
process. No-one sane would stop an fsck in mid-stream, unless
they don't know what they're doing, of course.
>
>I think that the file table itself was screw up.
>
>
>> Why would you repartition? The only reason to do this is if
>> the partition table has been damaged on the machine. If that
>> has happened, it is nothing to do with the filesystem on
>> any partition at all. It will not prevent a rescue disk
>> from working. How did you know that the partition table had
>> been damaged? This just doesn't add up.
>
>Because I then had to reinstall, and I wanted to make some changes in the
>partition table for the new install.
The only systems which need reinstalling are windows ones. You
don't reinstall linux ones because there is no advantage in
doing so. This is a windowsism.
I think you need to learn a bit more about linux before making
these posts - your windows experiences simply do not have
analogues in the linux world.
>
>
>> > >> To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
>> >> >> Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
>> >> >> credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
>> >> >
>> >> >FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
>> >>
>> >> FAT certainly is not.
>> >
>> >FAT has yet to take all my files away from a system crush or power down.
>>
>> For ext2 to do this, you'd have to have information about every
>> single file in a given area stored in the cache, which means you'd
>> have to be editing eg., every /etc file, at the same time.
>>
>> I just do not believe this. No-one in the right mind would
>> even consider doing something that risky.
>
>
>> >> NTFS I don't know much about.
>> >> Please provide evidence that this has happened.
>> >> Perhaps you could list the files in /etc which
>> >> were corrupted, that might help us here. (Although I
>> >> strongly suspect you can't because you don't know).
>> >
>> >You weren't paying attention.
>> >The whole FS vanished.
>>
>> Vanished???? This is isn't the X-files! Further back, you
>> were claiming that the partition table was damaged. Now
>> you're claiming that the filesystem vanished - what, every
>> single bit on the HD just 'went away'?
>
>The partition table was fine, I just didn't like the way it was set up, and
>changed it on reinstall.
Then there was nothing wrong with /etc - you just re-partitioned the
disk. I wonder how you're going to trim this post to try to hide
the history to this one.
Your claims go from sublime to ridiculous.
>
>> You hope.
>
>No, I know.
>There is hardly anything that can curropt the registry.
>If you know of something, please provide some info about it.
I would suggest you partitioning the machine for reasons known
only to yourself would be the largest risk to the registry in
any machine anywhere near you.
>
>> >The almost sole reason that the registry become curropted is HD failure.
>>
>> HD failure is extremely rare compared to Win crashes in my experience.
>> In fact, I've never had a HD fail (although I do know several folk
>> who have).
>
>Lucky you.
>On my machine (home one)
>I'd three failures with WD 1.6 GB HD
>One with a 10 GB (Seaquest, I think)
>And one with a 15 GB from IBM
What do you do to your machines which results in damaged partition
tables, random re-partitions 'cos you feel like it, destroyed...
this is silly.
>
>Those are usually bad sectures, btw.
>In one case over 25% of the disk became unusable.
>Linux machines usually use older hardware, more prune to mistakes.
>
>BTW, what Win are you talking about?
>I've yet to have Win2k BSOD on me unless it's the screen saver.
The screen saver BSODs?
Linux machines use hardware which is as old as it is. They
do not usually use newer or older hardware than any other OS
installed at the same time. Another very silly statement.
>
>
>> >And, if we are already talking about it, the registry is not a single
>file,
>> >but several.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Damage of 1 or 2 bytes to a monolithic binary file can cause
>> >> the whole file to be unparsable; to achieve the same effect
>> >> in /etc., you'd have to damage *every* file in there, near
>> >> the start of the file *and* each package would have to have
>> >> non-sensible defaults compiled in (which they don't).
>> >
>> >And as I've said, you are very unlikely to damage the registry short of
>> >damaging the HD itself.
>>
>> The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
>
>How? Nothing can write to the registry save the OS.
>And the OS hadnle the registry in a very strict manner, so you can't corrupt
>it.
>
Well, apparently you like to re-partition on a whim.
The registry can be corrupted, the OS is not free of bugs (in
fact its renowned for not being so).
The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:01:05 +0000
In article <8vqtut$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> I've seen it take out the majority of the WINDOWS directory on 95.
>> I installed 98 on my sister-in-laws machine, and still had many
>> problems. A UPS fixed them; she hasn't called me lately.
>
>UPS?
>Unitteruptable Power Supply?
>Or is it some other abbrevation?
>
>
Yes, uninterruptable power supply. I've not seen it stand for
anything else in computing. I believe that there is a US
shipping company which uses the same initials, but I don't think
he meant that he'd attached a shipping company to his sister-in
laws machine :)
mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:14:31 +0000
In article <8vqvqh$5f036$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpm8e$5alsr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> >There are plenty of alternatives, and the barriers you are talking about
>> >are, what?
>> >
>> >Mac: High cost, now this is eliminated.
>> >BeOS: Lack of drivers, any new info about this? I've not looked into it
>in a
>> >long time.
>> >Linux/Unix: Lack of application, taken care of, unfriendly, taken care
>of,
>> >not yet complete.
>> >OS/2: ???
>> >Amiga: ???
>> >
>> >What are those barriers that you are talking about?
>> >What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/ Os/2 ???
>> >I can get applications to do much the same things that I do in windows, I
>> >can read windows files, I can do everything I can do in windows on other
>OS.
>> >(And in 9x & especially ME case, a lot more)
>> >
>> >What prevents me from moving OS?
>>
>>
>> The barriers to entry in monopoly analysis are business barriers
>> not technical barriers. This is how they are defined. This is
>> not really the place for a lecture on economics, but...
>>
>> Massive existing installed user base of technology X is a major
>> barrier to a vendor who would like to introduce technology Y.
>>
>> When the user base is over 49% it is considered to be virtually
>> impossible to overcome without vast resources. This is usually
>> impossible because the organisation which has the vast resources
>> is the one which already has the 49%. This is why governments
>> have agencies or departments charged with observing and analysing
>> markets and taking action where monopolies are found to exist.
>
>Correct, now did you know that one of the very few things that Judge Johnson
>ruled in favor of MS was that even though it's a monopol, and used its
>influence to make more people use their products. It has *not* prevented
>other products from competing with it.
>The first is a perfectly legal, morally correct, and a wise bussiness
>decision. The second is considered illegal, but still a wise bussiness
>decision, moral I leave to others to ponder about, as value systems are
>different around the world.
>
>> They also observe for Cartels. A Cartel is where a small group
>> of organisations artificially joins their market spaces together
>> such that the sum-total of their joined market is 49% or more.
>> They can then impose technology, pricing or whatever on the
>> market because they have made the barrier too high for another
>> organisation to overcome.
>
>Yes, I know.
>
>> >No, if you don't get enough money to return your invesement, you don't do
>> >it.
>> >The additional money was enough to return the invesement.
>>
>> The additional money would not have been required had there
>> been any competition, since a competing organisation would
>> have provided the functionality. Basically, Microsoft had
>> to be bribed by a Government to meet the customers
>> requirement, since they were not going to do it themselves,
>> because they have nobody to compete with.
>
>No, there was a competition.
Doh - the market barriers are to high thus there is no
viable competition.
Please try to understand this - it's fundamental to
how monopolies operate.
The barriers are not technical so a different technical solution
does not enable to monopoly to be broken.
These concepts are really not that difficult.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:11:25 +0000
In article <8vqtur$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpjv9$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vpeh6$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> >He doesn't have a floppy drive.
>> >> >And there are tools for win98 that can read ext2 fs.
>> >>
>> >> Not that come on a Win98 install disk, there aren't.
>> >
>> >So? Is there a point here?
>> >Much of my software doesn't come from the Windows CD.
>> >Loading tons of application on a CD is convenient, but if MS would start
>> >doing this you would hear screams about product bundling.
>>
>> You said you were installing this to fix an ext2 system,
>> that's the point.
>
>No, I said that he did it to *back up* ext2 system.
>
>> >He has a non-bootable cd, I think.
>>
>> If his CD is non-bootable, then HOW THE HELL IS HE INSTALLING WIN98?
>> You said he has no floppy and you were installing from a slackware
>> system which wouldn't boot. For G*d's sake, this is getting more
>> and more ridiculous.
>
>I said *CD*, not *CD-ROM*
>The CD & Bios support booting from CD, the Slackware CD itself didn't.
Then how did he get slackware onto the machine? This still does
not stack up! He's no bootable CDROM, he's no floppy, what did
he do which left him in a position with a machine with slackware
on it, a FAT32 partition but no Win98?
This is just not possible.
>
>> >vnetbios.vxd
>> >you need this file to dial up, you don't need it for windows to work.
>> >He skipped it because he is an idiot.
>>
>> Ah, in Win98 if something goes wrong with the install, the CD cannot
>> be read, then the installer is an idiot?
>
>No, the user is an idiot.
>An installer is an "it", no a "he"
Er, the user is an idiot because microsoft's CD was broken?
Wow I love windows people.
>
>If he would've known what to do, he would've pointed the setup to the
>alternative location.
I still don't understand why he's trying to install windows on
a slackware machine to fix a disk - apparently, he's somehow
got to re-partition this thing without losing data to get a new
OS on to fix an ext2 filesystem which.....oh g*d.
>
>
>> >Take a CD, take a screwdriver, scratch the CD, try to read the CD in a
>> >CD-Rom
>> >That is (to a lesser degree) happens to CD which are improperly handled.
>> >It doesn't matter whose CD it is.
>>
>> Ah, so you're now claiming that the CD we're installing from has
>> been vandalised? Even though the drive doesn't boot anyway?
>
>No, it has been handled improperly, and it had scratches, which prevents
>some of the disk from being read.
>How does this has to do with a bottable CD?
>The Drive boot, the Slackware CD doesn't.
Then how did he get slackware onto the machine in the first place,
and still need to install win98?
Which can't help him fix his problem in the first place.
>
>And just to counter your next arguement, no, it wasn't the burned ISO,
>(which as far as I know, can boot)
>It was a CD that a friend burned for him, and he didn't make the CD a
>bootable one
>
>> >win98 cd contains several places where the cabs are stored on.
>> >
>> So you keep saying, but you also say that the CD doesn't boot,
>> that he has no floppy and that the existing OS won't start. Since
>> all of these cannot be true, I don't actually believe you.
>
>There is a hell of a lot of a difference between a CD, which is a peice of
>round plastic, and a CD-ROM, which is the drives that read it.
No, that's wrong. A cdrom drive is a drive, a cdrom is a cdrom.
>
>
>> >There are more things in heaven and hell that are dreamt of in your
>> >philosopy, Huratcio - Shakspere (badly spelled, probably)
>>
>> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
>> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
>> true, I don't actually believe you.
>
>See above.
This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
on the machine in the first place.
>
>> >> >I wasn't *talking* about Linux, I was talking about why you don't need
>to
>> >> >re-install windows.
>> >> >Microsoft provide CDs from which it's very much possible to install.
>> >> >But CD has a tendacy to get unreadable if you threat them wrongly.
>> >>
>> >> You say quite clearly at the start of this thread that the
>> >> problem was with slackware, and you even say part way up this
>> >> post that you would install a third party package in order to
>> >> be able to read the ext2 filesystem.
>> >
>> >Yes, but that wasn't what I'm talking about.
>> >That is *background*.
>> >I'm talking about how he reinstalled (twice!) to get rid of a problem he
>> >could've gotten rid of without reinstalling.
>>
>> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
>> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
>> true, I don't actually believe you.
>
>See above.
See above. You do not make sense and I do not believe you.
This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
on the machine in the first place.
>
>> >> You also state quite clearly that the Microsoft CD was uninstallable
>> >> from. You try to claim that he had to use a CD because he had no
>> >> floppy. You do not explain how he had slackware on the machine
>> >> in the first place.
>> >>
>> >> You now state that even that CDROM failure was the user's fault!
>> >
>> >Yes, if you don't keep the CD in its box, if you let your CD get
>scratches,
>> >it's your fault that they don't work.
>> >
>> >
>> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
>> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
>> true, I don't actually believe you.
>
>See above.
This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
on the machine in the first place.
>
>> Ayende - please try telling something truthful - if you don't,
>> you will surely get caught out here.
>
>There are more things in heaven and hell that are dreamt of in your
>philosopy, Huratcio - Shakspere (badly spelled, probably)
>
>Try to think about it.
This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
on the machine in the first place.
>
>
Ayende - your lies are getting you into a major logical problem
This is not a philosophical problem, it's a simple logical one.
If you're going to try to contrive a problem to report here,
you really do need to do some more research on how linux
works.
Eric Raymond has an excellent 'beginners unix' page, you
might also try reading the powerup2bashprompt howto (or
whatever its called).
You could follow it up by reading about init, fsck, ext2 and
the VFS in linux.
The scenario you have presented is logically inconsistent in
multiple ways. Do your background reading, find out why that
is the case, then give us another shot.
Or just stick to windows, of course.
Cheers,
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
