Hello Steven - At 12:11 PM 3/1/03 +0000, you wrote:
>> Your time in the spotlight may be shorter than you think, > >Which spotlight is that? The 27 people who subscribe to >this list? That number plus the 160 referrals per week from just my website, yes. >> and being ignored by those you have stepped on may become >> the 'norm'. > >I'm happy being ignored. I get more work done. The ultimate punishment for a serial killer in prison is solitary confinement. I am told that after two weeks they come out willing to do whatever they are told to do. >BTW who have I stepped on? Naming me as the cause of your inactivity isn't going to win me any kind words here and you did try to make it look that way. >> >The only way to clarify this problem is to determine >> >*exactly* which method of authentication the offending >> >ISP uses. PAP, CHAP, whatever. Note: I think there >> >is a variant of PAP (?) provided by MicroSoft that is >> >somewhat different from the standard. >> >> As Howard Eisenberg what his ISP uses. It won't work on >> that one either. > >I'm not asking. I already knew that when I typed that sentence. >You are the one worried about eznet. Not 'worried' at all. Your name is attached to BasicLinux, not mine. If the numbers of persons unable to use it is of no concern to you then it's not my problem. I tell it as I see it and then it's yours. >I was merely suggesting a rational way of approaching >the issue. If, for example, both ISPs in question use >MS-CHAP (or whatever it is), then we have a starting >point. Simply saying "it doesn't work, it doesn't work" >gets us nowhere. My ISP is manned by children who know little to nothing about what they are setup with. It is extremely difficult to get the sys admin on the phone and they think they are giving out gov secrets when they describe what they actually are using. Every weenie is afraid of 'hackers' and in their mind I am one because they know after all these years that I don't use Windows all the time. >> there are two 'homepages' with different version on them. > >Don't blame me. I was happy to move on to 2.01 and leave >1.8 in the past. However, several people want the libc5/ >kernel-2.0 version to continue. And that's fine by me. I wasn't assigning 'blame', I was just stating a fact. I can readily imagine people who have invested time in setting up a more elaborate install based on Slack v3.5 not wanting to lose access to the previous Slack v3.5 based software. Everyone does not want to constantly 'upgrade'. If we did this would be the wrong elist for us. :-) Charles.Angelich "DOS Ghost" Tech Website : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/ Music,Photos,Stories,etc. Website : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/ Default Browser HomePage : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/homepage.asp To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
