Pittman, Merle wrote:
> YOU ARROGANT P---k!!
>
> So a few math and physics courses (probably from mail order, or your nearest
> community college) make you all that. I have 2 advanced degrees in
> engineering (electronics and computers) yet I think myself no better or
> smarter than anyone on this list and neither should you.
Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human being,
except that you know more about the technical business you studied in. Humans
are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot more
to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced degrees
in technology.
Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the
cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this planet;
therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these
aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the
natural environment of this planet is.
If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could only
figure out that simple reality.
My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves highly
advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this; however, to
give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all arrogant and
it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a no-bs
type.
If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way, if
that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend your two
pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as stated
above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated types.
I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the
opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY. Hence
I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover and
develop, but use so atrociously.
If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll never be
convincing, not to me.
If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I wasn't
bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was not at
all for bragging, because, as per above.
mike
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Corbeil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 2:39 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
> >
> > Alan Shoemaker wrote:
> >
> > > Mike....correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the guy who's
> > > been telling some folks in this list that their questions aren't
> > > appropriate for this forum and to go ask them in the expert
> > > list? Well I think that your response in this thread (quoted
> > > below) was not appropriate for the newbie list. The remedy here
> > > was very simple and your four rambling paragraphs have simply
> > > served to confuse the issue.
> > >
> >
> > Not really, but then maybe I've been accustomed to less than trivial for
> > longer
> > than I can recall. When I first started learning about computers and
> > programming, my ramble wouldn't have caused any problems, but then I also
> > had a
> > few years of math and physics behind me. Nonetheless, if I think back to
> > before
> > that, then I wouldn't have been put off by a more thorough explanation.
> > Heck, my
> > father wanted me to help him remodel the house when I was a mere 8 years
> > old;
> > therefore, I've been held to above normal expectations for decades.
> >
> > If you're confused, then don't think that this means that everyone else
> > who's a
> > newbie would also be confused. As I recall in school, in every course, at
> > every
> > level, not everyone was equally comfortable with the material.
> >
> > What I prefer to do when I find an answer or document too complicated, is
> > to
> > stick with the one I was more comfortable with, as long as it works.
> > Otherwise,
> > I just ask questions for clarification.
> >
> > We're not communicating between people in grade 1 of elementary school,
> > here;
> > therefore, expect some people to provide more thorough answers. When you
> > don't
> > like it, move on. If newbies seeking help scream in panic, then this will
> > definitely help to indicate that what you say is true, but as it is,
> > you're
> > pretending to be able to speak for them, instead of letting them speak for
> > themselves.
> >
> > As a relative newbie to Linux systems administration, but not to Unix and
> > programming, I presented information I learned as a newbie to Linux
> > systems
> > administration, and based on this, the additional info wasn't out of
> > context.
> >
> > Besides, newbies also need to learn the system and some will catch on very
> > quickly, while those who don't, can either ask for clarification, or stick
> > with
> > the simpler responses they've received.
> >
> > How complicated do you want to make this?
> >
> > Some people in the newbie list have already proven that they're not
> > newbie; only
> > to installing Linux and only in some respects, more in some and less in
> > others.
> >
> > By providing more thorough information in a newbie mailing list, as well
> > as more
> > elementary answers, this satisfies the entire group. If you're not happy
> > with an
> > answer which is correct, then skip. If you're not happy with an answer
> > which is
> > not 100% correct, but along the correct line(s), then correct the errors.
> >
> > This mailing list is for learning, as far as I'm aware, because getting
> > help
> > inherently implies learning. Part of accepting to learn is accepting to
> > make
> > errors or mistakes, and to learn from these.
> >
> > Why treat people like babies, instead of giving them something to chew on?
> >
> > People using this list to get help for their employment should subscribe
> > to
> > professional support mailing lists or resources; therefore, I don't
> > perceive
> > these mailing lists except for the much more general audience, including
> > hobbiests. My case is neither of these, but instead merely learning, to
> > merely
> > become more marketable, kind of like going to school, but without the
> > tuition
> > fees and the piece of paper at the end. You'll find people using these
> > mailing
> > lists for various reasons, but you seem to only want to reduce or restrict
> > to
> > people who are 100% newbie to computing, which is not the reality.
> >
> > If you wish to share more about your pedagogical philosophies or
> > approaches, then
> > feel free. However, I wouldn't bother based on this thread, because what
> > I presented is not really above the newbie level. Again, I learned it
> > during my
> > newbie phase to Linux systems administration, but then I tend to spend a
> > fair
> > amount of time reading ahead and reading various documentation I come
> > across and
> > which might be even remotely related. Just because others don't do this,
> > doesn't
> > mean that this approach isn't relevant to people at the newbie level.
> >
> > Baby food is nourishing, but it's usually more nourshing when there's an
> > adequate
> > amount of vitamins and minerals.
> >
> > I'm not knocking the response to set umask to 0 for the dos partitions, in
> > the
> > fstab file, but also didn't present anything above newbie level. Hence,
> > argumentation or discourse.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > Mike Corbeil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alan Shoemaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bob....you also need to include umask=0 on that line in
> > > > > /etc/fstab.
> > > >
> > > > Must be a fairly new requirement, or there's a difference in the
> > default
> > > > umask value between RH 5.1 and Mandrake, because I don't need umask=0
> > to be
> > > > able to write to my dos partitions. I merely set it to noauto,rw and
> > this
> > > > is adequate.
> > > >
> > > > The only reason you'ld need to included umask=0 is because of the
> > > > system-wide default value for it, probably defined in /etc/profile or
> > > > /etc/bashrc. This may also depend on whether you're allowing only
> > root to
> > > > write or make changes to the dos partitions, or also allowing users.
> > I
> > > > don't give users access to my dos partitions, albeit it's a standalone
> > > > system and I'm the only user anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I read somewhere, recently, that umask should be set to 0 in the
> > system-wide
> > > > login scripts, but that's the opinion of one author of documentation.
> > If,
> > > > however, you're going to set umask to 0 for the dos partition(s), then
> > you
> > > > might want to simply set the system-wide value to this anyway, which
> > means
> > > > you wouldn't need to include this in fstab.
> > > >
> > > > You'ld need to do some research through various documents which touch
> > upon
> > > > this subject, before taking my word as gospel.
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Alan
> > > > >
> > > > > Cox Family wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > another stumper for me?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wanted to make a new directory on the DOS partition that I
> > could
> > > > > > put some WP8 files in (because the apostrophe comes out on the
> > printer
> > > > > > as something stupid in Linux right now) and it said I didn't have
> > > > > > permission. I checked the "fstab" and hda1 includes "user" in
> > > > > > permissions. I checked properties by right-clicking on the icon
> > and it
> > > > > > includes user, group and others for both read and write.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, so I made the directory as super-user, gave it "a+rwx"
> > permissions,
> > > > > > and still couldn't save a file in it. Access denied. No permission
> > to
> > > > > > write or what ever....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, what am I missing here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> >
> >
