Hello Wolfgang - At 12:58 PM 3/3/03 +0100, you wrote:
>can we please stop the flame wars on this list? As Steven has pointed out they stop when people stop trying to renew them including psuedo attempts at mediating them. >I think by now everyone is aware that e.g. Steven C. Darnold >and Charles Angelich are not exactly each others hottest friends. I cannot speak for Steven but this is not true. I wouldn't have created an entire webpage just to distribute his files if I did not like him. Most files have a few links on other pages, BasicLinux has an entire page _plus_ a personal recommendation from me to try it. This gives you the impression I do not like Steven? KNOPPIX has it's own page because I was so impressed that they are offering to send CDs for free that I wanted to repay/reward their efforts. Although since it's a DOS and W31 website there would be few pages where Linux references or links would seem appropriate. :-) >Nevertheless we all agree that both (and others, too) are doing >valuable contributions to the Internet and the subjects relevant >to this list. Thank you. My entire website is dedicated to support of legacy hardware and software with minor references to newer hardware and software where it seemed appropriate to do so. The website is probably one of the larger survpc websites out there and it didn't write itself. >Please, let us appreciate those valuable contributions and drop >any personal accusations or "ad hominem" remarks! The one person, who shall remain nameless, that is way over the top has personal problems I will not put on display here for ridicule. I tried to write/test and debug code for him including ASM written in Spainish (which I do not speak) but when it seemed hopeless after 3 years he became abusive because I needed the time for other purposes (my two websites) and my last XT, my 80286, and my 80386 machines all died on me - no way to test the software here anymore. His 'problem' is in no way related to the recent disagreements and in no way related to BasicLinux, this survpc list, and probably in no way to me either - the man simply has problems. >Regarding problems with EZNET: [...] >Therefore it is okay to say "software xy does not work for me in >the setup that I used", but we should not say "software xy is bad >software" unless we can diagnose (and prove) a precise technical >error in the software. The precise 'error' is that EZNET is inflexible, cannot be adjusted without recompiling, and new users having only a BasicLinux install cannot recompile it easilly (no compiler?). The more standard dialup relies on text files (chatscr etc.) that a new user could at least _attempt_ to adjust to gain access to the ISP. Any 'experience' using EZNET does not carry over when going to a full install of any Linux I know of. EZNET simply does not exist in the Linux world. It's an orphan abandoned by it's author. Learning EZNET codes, switches, and peculiarities is of no value once you leave BasicLinux behind for a full install of SlackWare. Does anyone here see a reason to become proficient at using an oprhaned abandoned piece of software? I don't. >In the case of EZNET, a "proof" would at least require a full >protocol snap shot (with e.g. a proper freeware program) that >documents the exact PPP and TCP/IP packets sent/received and >permits any expert to objectively pin-point an RFC violation on >either the side of EZNET or the ISP. (Of course, such a protocol >snap-shot may also point to a configuration error.) I would never even consider debugging EZNET after the author was as rude and flippant about the program as he was when I asked him about the program. He told me he did not care if it worked or not, he no longer needed it nor his friends, since they are all on 24/7 cable connects. I'm not his flunky to make it appear his software was ever fully functional or that he cared one way or the other. He doesn't. [...] >Therefore, in such a situation the RFCs >(= internet standards) decide what is right or wrong, and the >comparison of 2 programs against each other is not suitable, by >itself, for any final judgement. My 'comparison' (see above) was regarding methods of implimentation and not 'programs'. One method is easier for a user to modify to accomodate one-of cirumstances than the other method. EZNET is a nonstandard orphaned abandoned piece of code that no one will ever see again if they install any other Linux. btw: LSPPP has a similar problem in that it is inflexible and many have mentioned to me that newer versions won't connect to their ISP when original versions did. They have no option but to use the older version. For some no version of LSPPP will work and they use EPPPD which relies more on text files (chat scripts). LSPPP will fail to connect to my ISP 9 out of 10 tries fwiw. >Regarding links: > >To link to specific files is _not_ a violation of Netiquette (see >RFC 1855, Netiquette). On the contrary, the WWW was designed to >do exactly that. Of course, the concept of the WWW assumes that >links are treated according to proper scientific references, i.e. >that no attempt is made to cloud the fact that the links lead to >works of other people. (So-called "deep links" from frames that >make the foreign content appear as one's own content, would be >inappropriate [and even illegal in some countries]. But I cannot >see such an inappropriateness in the links on Charles' web site.) When I go to a website looking for a particular file or set of files and the page seems confusing or relies on familiarity with new terminology users may or may not understand I link directly to the files so that I can, at my own website, use terminology that I think new users can understand. It's hand-holding for newbies primarilly. Finding FreeDOS has been like this lately with multiple versions and links to links to links ending at a LINUX website which, I would imagine, confuses the heck out of some people. >Aside from this netiquette/legal aspect, there is of course the >problem of coping with changes in links. Here a linking to a >"mother page" instead of a specific file name with a version in >it may alleviate the update-problem. But this is a support issue >and has nothing to do with what is Netiquette or permitted. As I was trying to point out when the vultures decended, the BL webpages were rearranged recently throwing all of my links out the window. Steven and I could have come to some 'arrangement' if others hadn't seen this as an opportunity to play 'hero' as though I was attacking Steven. My BL webpage tells users there are addons, linking to the BL v2.x page there would be no addons. I did not want to bypass BL v2.x but I didn't want new people to think BL had no addons either. I wasn't certain how best to accomplish this 'trick' without misleading people into thinking there was no updated BasicLinux. New people don't find the existence of 3 versions based on 3 different Slack distros easy to digest. I had visions of people downloading Slack v8.x binaries to plug into BL v1.x etc. There is a BL webpage that seems to have fallen between the cracks and is only linked to from the hotlist when using older BL v1.x and LINKS. Sorting this out to try to make it understandable for new people who have not been following this along is time consuming as is having to explain all this to people who have no website and cannot use this information for anything other than gossip, inuendo, and chit-chat. Prior to discussing any of this here I had already informed the webmaster of the BL v1.x webpages that some of _his_ links were broken and his reply to me (posted here earlier) was that Steven had moved files without telling him. THIS was what I was attempting to discuss and work out a 'plan' for. As I said I have 2045 external links and can't spend all of my time on just BasicLinux link chasing nor do I have time to explain how my website is constructed to everyone who thinks they are a better webmaster than I am. When the dust settles on the tech website I spend considerable time creating my own legal MP3/WMA music and putting that at my free music webpage which I prefer to do more as time goes by rather than be the scapegoat here on this elist. 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
