Linux-Advocacy Digest #350, Volume #35 Mon, 18 Jun 01 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Win/userbase! (GreyCloud)
Re: The Win/userbase! (GreyCloud)
Re: Virus Scanners... (GreyCloud)
NT on Alpha stuff... (was Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (GreyCloud)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (GreyCloud)
Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:09:47 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> > >Erik, the big thing I don't understand is this;
> > >
> > >Charlie talks about how bad Windows is, and how unstable, unsecure
> > >
> > >it is, etc etc, then posts his comments here. Now, as a
> > >UNIX/Linux/Windows 2000 Pro user, I personally don't give a shit about
> > >his anacdotal stories. If people choose to run Windows, Linux or any
> > >other OS, good for them, however, don't come bitching and moaning
> > >because you server/workstation was cracked, or infected with a virus.
> > >Don't come out, all guns blazing because [product] doesn't do [feature],
> > >or moan because someone insulted OS.
> > >
> > >1. It is just software, not an animal, partner, sex toy or any other
> > >"exotic" life necessity.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong answer. The Human race could not survive today without
> > the aid of computers and the software which drives them.
> >
> > Only the ignorant would make a statement such as this.
> >
> > >2. If you use Windows 2000 Pro, or Linux, then who cares? not me. How
> > >is someone using Windows or Linux going to affect me? its not, hence, it
> > >is not an issue.
> > >
> >
> > Then why are you here?
> >
> > >3. Who cares what Microsoft does? I'm not worried about what Microsoft
> > >does in its "secret under ground lear".
> > >
> >
> > They will create a situation where by computer software costs
> > skyrise to even greater heights than ever conceived of before.
> >
> > They are a tumor on the body we know as planet earth and must
> > be removed.
>
> Where's Tim McVeigh when you need him?
>
Six feet under by now I suppose.
:-)
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:11:35 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> >
> >>I've heard of a certain mail program automatically running certain
> >>attachments. Also, your forgot to mention that Windows makes it easy
> >>to make .exe files look like .jpg files etc.
> >>
> >
> > Um, yeah, I just thought of a couple of ways a JPEG lookalike could
> > really be an exe in disguise. But then, I always switch on "show file
> > extensions".
> >
> >
> >>I don't see how that's an advantage. I'd rather run a "cat /dev/null >
> >>/dev/hd*" virus on linux than a "format c:" virus on windows. Why?
> >>Because linux gives "Permission Denied!"
> >>
> >
> > Unless you are root, of course.
> >
> >
>
> Who runs in root when using UNIX?
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>From what I've read I think Chad does.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanners...
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:14:25 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > In article <9gevou$fej$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig wrote:
> >
> >>Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If XP is so secure then what will you say
> >>>to a new computer with XP pre-installed and
> >>>another Virus Scanning program also installed?
> >>>
> >>Whats the relation to Linux?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Linux has none nor will it ever have a virus scanner.
> > Linux doesn't need a virus scanner.
> >
> > If you design your OS correctly you don't need such
> > nonsense.
> >
> > Yet when you examine Windows and look back over time,
> > they are probably celebrating their 15th anniversary
> > of virus scanners and they still don't have a clue
> > here.
> >
> > That's the relation.
> >
> >
>
> True, on my *NIX box I have 3 accounts, root, mgardiner, and internet.
> Internet is used stictly for internet use only to ensure that nothing
> can be deleted. mgardiner account is not used for net surfing, thus each
> account is seperate from each other, thus stopping a viir from reaking
> havok.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Hey, that's not a bad idea. I will adopt this as well! Thanks for the
tip.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: NT on Alpha stuff... (was Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:07:06 -0700
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:11:00 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Raving bullshit, Chad. Microsoft have shown themselves quite
> > > incompetent at dealing with any cross-platform support. The lack of
> >
> > How exactly? Just because people were not purchasing
> > Alpha, PPC, or MIPS boxen to run WindowsNT because
> > they were way overpriced, and not significantly any
> > more powerful than modern ix86 boxen?
>
> For some things they _are_ significantly more powerful than x86. They
More accurately, they _were_ significantly more powerful,
but the line was pretty much wiped up once the Pentium
IIs and IIIs came out.
> also had better SMP capability for a long while. People _did_ and _do_
> buy them, but not with Windows, because Windows on Alpha is still a
> 32-bit operating system even though the chip is a 64-bit chip. By
More accurately, WindowsNT boots with the ARC firmware,
as opposed to the SRM firmware. The Alpha architecture
was geared more for UNIX (Tru64) and OpenVMS than it
was for WindowsNT. In fact, the SRM console is a bit
like a UNIX shell.
>From what I've seen of the ARC firmware, it's
very NT-centric, and very difficult to understand.
The point is, even though WindowsNT still ran in 32-bit
mode, it could take advantage of some of the features
of Alpha hardware at the time, but not to an extent that
the same version of NT running on ix86 boxen would be
shown to be so inept.
In other words, WindowsNT was better off being optimized
for ix86 boxen, since that was where the money was. That
is why Microsoft dropped support for RISC processors...
around '98 wasn't it?
> going with Windows you give back much of the performance you paid for.
> Why would anyone do that?
3D animation is one of the common apps I've seen NT on
Alpha used for. It was significantly faster than the
Pentium Pro chips, until the Pentium II and III arches
were released, at which point, spending money on an
Alpha for WindowsNT when ix86 boxen could do the same
job faster in most cases simply made no sense.
> > There is a "demand" for Alpha systems? From where exactly?
>
> High-end graphics, large database servers. They get sold a lot into
> the very markets MS is trying to penetrate with Datacenter Server. How
> many copies of that are they planning to sell? They seem to be willing
> to go into small markets if there is a margin to be made. Yeah, they
> have to charge more than they do for the Intel version, but it looks as
> if the market might support that.
If it was a money maker, don't you think they would
jump on it in a flash? After all, corporations like
to make money.
A true 64-bit WindowsNT would be very cool, but at
this time, it would be a lot of work all for not.
No demand, and no 3rd-party support.
> > No, it bombed, because nobody was purchasing Alpha systems,
> > you twit.
>
> It bombed because it did not take advantage of the Alpha systems like
> OpenVMS and Tru64 Unix and Linux did (and do). If you want to run
This is true to an extent. But do you know why WindowsNT
had this limitation in the first place? To accomodate
the MIPS architecure. It's hardly because "Microsoft
simply couldn't make WindowsNT 64-bit". Since they
were interested in keeping the code as portable as
possible, they had to consider the limitations of
every arch they ported to.
Do some reading on the limitations of MIPS processors
some time... it's quite an eye-opener.
> Windows, then there is indeed little reason to do so on Alpha hardware,
> but that isn't at all the same as Alpha hardware being "overpriced".
>
>
> > In fact, architectures like MIPS never sold well at all outside
> > of SGI's market, simply because MIPS arches have very fscking
> > stupid limitations such as limiting applications to only 2GB
> > of RAM, and so forth.
>
> There was a 2 GB RAM limit on the original NT, even on Intel. It was
Again, because of MIPS. In fact, WindowsNT was
originally implemented on MIPS processors.
> done that way so the kernel could directly map all of RAM into the
> kernel's reseved space. This simplified various kernel tasks. Linux
No, it was done that way, because MIPS was the
very first chip that NT was implemented on. It
supported 4GB of RAM, but with one requirement:
no application could access more than 2GB of
RAM at a time. NT was designed to require the
same, since "MIPS RISC" was thought to be the
"wave of the future".
> > If it was a lie, then why does WindowsNT v4.0 run on
> > MIPS, PPC, and Alpha, as well as ix86?
>
> In 32-bit mode only. People buying those chips don't buy NT because it
> does not fully support the hardware. If you're going to pay extra for a
> high-powered system, why limit yourself by choosing the broken software?
Applications. For example, Sound Forge, Lightwave
v4, and several other specialized applications ran on
NT Alpha, and at a bit of an advantage over ix86
arches... at the time. Such advantages are nearly
non-existent these days.
I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense
to purchase 64-bit hardware only to boot NT in
ARC mode to run at 32-bits. But if your needs
are there, you own the hardware, and you want
the specialized apps, it can make sense for some.
> BTW, the longer they go _without_ an Alpha or PPC port, then harder it
> will be to create one in the future. The reason is that without there
> being an active port, there is no reason not to put in "x86-ism's" that
Again, the 32-bit limitation was not an "x86ism". It
was a "MIPSism".
> cause problems on other platforms. They may try to avoid this, but
> without testing on other platforms it it is virtually guaranteed to
> happen. So Chad's idea of "any time they want" is quite optimistic to
> say the least.
They have the manpower, and the money. They can
pretty much do what they damn well please with
the code. Why is that so far-fetched? Remember,
Microsoft's engineers aren't volunteers. They
get paid to get things done. But they won't do
anything that isn't going to be profitable.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:18:41 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:J2eX6.46341$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Z_bX6.332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> >"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> >>"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >> >>> My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows
> > settings
> > > >> >>> are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power
switch in
> > > >> >>> certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows
technical
> > > >> >>> problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to
use
> > my
> > > >> >>> computer's power switch to do so.
> > > >>
> > > >> >>That's not Windows fault, it's to do with the ACPI BIOS I
believe.
> > > >>
> > > >> >And what entity dictated that standard?
> > > >>
> > > >> Nevermind. Highly likely that was Microsoft's doing, but it does
not
> > > >> matter. Windows could unconditionally send a shut down signal to
the
> > > >> mainboard. Instead, Windows polls itself to see if shutting down
is
> > > >> OK. I have a macroer running which has something to do with it.
The
> > > >> same thing happens when I do Start - Shut Down. Probably has
> > > >> something to do with the macroer's hooks. But the system is
> > > >> controlled by the operating system. Therefore, it is Microsoft's
> > > >> fault. My computer is supposed to shut down when I tell it to.
What
> > > >> would you think if you hit the power switch on your TV and for some
> > > >> internal reason, it failed to turn itself off?
> > >
> > > >What would happen? You would have a modern TV. Modern TVs and DVD
players
> > > >and Satellite receivers and DVRs like TIVO and UltimateTV don't turn
off
> > > >when you press the power switch. They go into standby mode and there
> > isn't a
> > > >damned thing you can do about that. Because that's how the
manufacturer
> > > >designed it to operate.
> > >
> > > That is bullshit from someone who is clueless. In the case I cited,
> > > Windows does not turn off the hard disk, the CPU, or even the monitor.
> > > It does not go into sleep mode. Well, there is one exception.
> > > Millennium does turn off the monitor while I am watching Internet TV.
> > > :o/
> > > Perpetual dysfunctionallity is why I stopped using Windows power
> > > management years ago.
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > Do you even have the slightest clue as to how to
> > access your system's BIOS and disable the power
> > management features. If you don't, then ask and
> > we'll attempt to help you. If you do, then do
> > it and shut the fuck up about it already.
> >
> > > >Don't like it? Don't buy it and don't use it. But shut up with your
> > stupid
> > > >thread already. Didn't you already post this question before but
using a
> > > >different name?
> > >
> > > I have always posted under the unique handle "LShaping"
> > > <plonk>
> > > Now you may listen but you may not speak.
> >
> > Ooooh! Boy, you really got Jan good there! Please
> > enlighten me, exactly how are you going to deny him
> > the ability to post to USENET? I'd be very interested
> > in seeing what sort of 'leet tools you have in your
> > arse...nal.
>
> I think for LShaping, <plonk> = "putting my thumbs in my ears and
> yelling LA LA LA LA" until he goes away.
Yeah, typical. It reminds me of the time that
I had some lager-swilling Solaris twink in ASR
threaten that he was going to contact my USENET
admin, and have him cut me off from USENET
altogether.
I E-mailed my news admin, and informed him that
someone might be making such a request of him,
and that I had not done anything to warrant such
a thing. I actually got a response:
"Personally, what you do or say on USENET is not my
concern (outside of illegal activities). If he hasn't
had the wherewithall to place you into his .tin/kill,
then he deserves to be harassed, mocked and ridiculed.
So have at it."
That one amused me to no end. I love these UNIX
wanks who think they have some kind of brotherhood
and some kind of high-and-mighty power over us
poor dumbass Windoze lusers. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:22:56 -0700
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <4%bX6.336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen S. Edwards II
wrote:
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >> >"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> And yet, whenever I mention to the penguinistas that
> >> >> Linux's lack of a centralized development model
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >
> >> >What hell is that object?
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >"I'll take 'Deceased Rappers' for $200, Alex."
> >>
> >> A "centralized development model" refers to a kernel.
> >
> >No, it refers to a system whereby code is
> >reviewed, evaluated, tested, corrected, and
> >then deemed either worthy or unworthy to be
> >put into the official distribution.
> >
> >> Linux has a kernel sir!
> >
> >Very good! Did you learn about that one on
> >Teletubbies?
> >
> >
>
> Then I suppose your refering to Debian from all
> your comments.
>
> Debian is the only one which has standards and
> ENFORCES THEM.
So does SuSE. So does RedHat. So does
Corel, and Caldera, Yellow Dog, MonkeyLinux,
MCC, Yggdrasil, Slackware and... point made.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:23:52 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:U_dX6.46339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4%bX6.336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > >"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> And yet, whenever I mention to the penguinistas that
> > > >> Linux's lack of a centralized development model
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > >What hell is that object?
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >"I'll take 'Deceased Rappers' for $200, Alex."
> > >
> > > A "centralized development model" refers to a kernel.
> >
> > No, it refers to a system whereby code is
> > reviewed, evaluated, tested, corrected, and
> > then deemed either worthy or unworthy to be
> > put into the official distribution.
> >
> > > Linux has a kernel sir!
> >
> > Very good! Did you learn about that one on
> > Teletubbies?
>
> LOL. Is Linus the yellow one?
Whichever one carries the purse. After all,
anyone who could suck at a FPS as pathetic
as Quake III...
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:23:17 -0700
LShaping wrote:
>
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >LShaping wrote:
> >>
> >> >> "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >so disable windows drivers for ACPI.
> >> >> >if it can't use them it can't control them.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the lead. I disabled ACPI and APM in the BIOS. I do not
> >> use Windows power management since it is dysfunctional, always has
> >> been. In the most advanced consumer version of Windows (Millennium),
> >> it shuts off my monitor while I am watching Internet TV.
> >> :o/
> >> After doing the BIOS, Emmy redetected the system devices. Then I
> >> reinstalled the video card drivers and disabled the VIA ACPI device in
> >> Control Panel. That should do it. If not, I will take your lead
> >> farther.
> >> C ya,
> >> LShaping
> >
> >Ouch! There is your problem... VIA.
>
> You are clueless! Whether Windows unconditionally sends a shut down
> signal to the mainboard has nothing to do with the chipset maker.
Not clueless but experienced. Via makes crappy chipsets and just about
anything can happen.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:28:10 -0700
LShaping wrote:
>
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >LShaping wrote:
> >>
> >> "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Chris Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:28:22 GMT, LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >>"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >>>"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>> My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows
> >> >settings
> >> >> >>>> are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power switch in
> >> >> >>>> certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows technical
> >> >> >>>> problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to use
> >> >my
> >> >> >>>> computer's power switch to do so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>That's not Windows fault, it's to do with the ACPI BIOS I believe.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>And what entity dictated that standard?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nevermind. Highly likely that was Microsoft's doing, but it does not
> >> >> >matter. Windows could unconditionally send a shut down signal to the
> >> >> >mainboard. Instead, Windows polls itself to see if shutting down is
> >> >> >OK. I have a macroer running which has something to do with it. The
> >> >> >same thing happens when I do Start - Shut Down. Probably has
> >> >> >something to do with the macroer's hooks. But the system is
> >> >> >controlled by the operating system. Therefore, it is Microsoft's
> >> >> >fault. My computer is supposed to shut down when I tell it to. What
> >> >> >would you think if you hit the power switch on your TV and for some
> >> >> >internal reason, it failed to turn itself off? This is another fine
> >> >> >example of blunderware from a monopoly OS maker whose only concern is
> >> >> >increasing profits and keeping appearances.
> >> >> >LShaping
> >> >>
> >> >> So employ the power switch. It's the rocker on the back next to the
> >> >> power inlet. With an ATX board and a "power" switch that goes to the
> >> >> motherboard, you are at the mercy of the BIOS, and the OS.
> >>
> >> Must have an IBM PC-XT, from over ten years ago. Modern personal
> >> computers have only one power switch and typically do not have a
> >> rocker switch on the back next to the power inlet. Not in the United
> >> States.
> >>
> >
> >
> >My IBM has a nice red rocker switch on the back.
>
> Provide a citation, a link to specifications of the power supply,
> since your opinion is meaningless.
> Microsoft slapped IBM so hard for wanting to include Smart Suite with
> IBM desktop PCs, IBM has stopped making PCs. Enlight and Antec power
> supplies have no such switch because, of course, before ATX mainboards
> came along the power switch on the front was wired directly to the
> power supply. Now, think for a minute. You cannot put two hardware
> switches together without extra circuitry. Besides costing the maker
> more, having two hardware switches wired to the same power supply
> makes no sense.
Seems like only the brain dead can spew this crap... look dipshit... IBM
is international and they make equipment to meet the needs or
standardizations of various countries... to wit the nice red-rocker
switch on the back of my IBM pc.
If you had a clue about electronics you'd realize that if I put a switch
in series with the main power line before the power supply I can cut off
all power to the computer regardless of what the software is doing.
I also have smart suite. No problems there and have never heard of such
a thing.
IBM is still making pcs. Go to their website and look at the A20 to A60
series.
Besides the switch is pretty cheap... more like less than a buck if its
made in mexico.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 04:30:46 GMT
In ashen ink the dread hand of Tukla Ratte did inscribe:
> I don't know if this is common in the U.S., but where I live, those under
> 21 can't even *sell* liquor. So, if you pick up a six-pack of Coors with
> your groceries at the supermarket, and the cashier is underage, they have
> to stop and find someone who's not underage to ring it up. It is illegal
> for the underage person to swipe the beer over the checkout's laser scanner.
> Insanity.
But they can take the beer off the truck and put it on the shelf in that
supermarket.
--
The United States of America: Screwing with the English Language
for over 200 years.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:34:49 -0700
Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:25:39 -0700, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >> Shut Down... path is for? Thanks to Microsoft for extending
> > > Windows slimey tenticles to my power supply. I can't wait to find out
> > > what "PCHealth" is going to do to my other hard disk partitions.
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > I find it quite amazing that we live in an age where
> > people actually complain about convenience. Go fig.
>
> If I use Start -> Shutdown -> Shutdown my machine shuts down and powers off
> so fast that at the next switch on Scandisk goes through its thing and gives
> me a row. (Win98).
>
> On windows 2000 it shagged it good and proper. "winnt\system32\config\system
> is missing or corrupted".
>
> Reiserfs seems to have survived so far...
>
> I now select restart and switch the UPS off when the reboot starts.
>
> Peter
Pretty much the same in Solaris. Power went out the other night
momemtarily.
Restarted the computer... Solaris said during bootup "system is stable"
instead of the customary "system is clean". It still booted up just
fine.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
