Hello Steven - At 12:36 PM 3/4/03 +0000, you wrote: >Charles Angelich wrote:
>> The precise 'error' is that EZNET is inflexible, >> cannot be adjusted without recompiling, >> 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. >> Learning EZNET codes, switches, and peculiarities is of no value >> once you leave BasicLinux behind for a full install of SlackWare. You insist this is not true but you have told me long ago in an email that you have no PPP connect and cannot test EZNET. How would you know? >> Does anyone here see a reason to become proficient at using an >> oprhaned abandoned piece of software? I don't. > >That's a strange comment on a survPC discussion group. Most of >us here are proficient in abandoned software and hardware. > >> It's an orphan abandoned by it's author. > >Isn't MS-DOS an orphan abandoned by its author. > >> 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 > >I suspect you would get a similar response if you asked MicroSoft >about DOS. This is faulty logic. People love to use DOS as their 'example' even when inappropriate. People who want to use the CLI but have access to updated modern applications that can make use of updated modern hardware are finding Linux as one alternative among others. No one is looking for another 'DOS'. What DOS can or cannot do or what Microsoft choses to do is in no way relevant when discussing an opensource OS that is _supposed_ to be maintained and updated as hardware and users needs are changing. We cannot mix discussions of DOS, CPM, or any other legacy OS with discussions of newer recently updated OS. This will result in conflict and confusion. >> 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. > >As I said before, the homepage URLs did not change. Your links >were affected because they linked to specific files. The homepage URL did, in fact, change and even split into two homepages. One for BL2 and one for BL1. My webpage was designed when there was ONE homepage. All of my links were not and are not to specific files, only a few of them. This too is an exaggeration of facts. >> Steven and I could have come to some 'arrangement' > >Sorry, Charles, that was never going to happen. I change the >filenames whenever I feel like it. I will not be checking with >you first. Feeling froggy eh? Others who want their files distributed do take time to notify websites when there is a change. If you are too busy get one of your vulture flunkies here to do it for you? I could care less. I tried to assist and help you get your software to potetnial users. I do not make any money from my websites nor do I make any money here at this elist. I maintain a low profile even at my own websites and am not looking for ego boosts. Some co-operation would be nice. You seem to feel like the 500 pound canary lately but that is going to be your problem, not mine. >> New people don't find the existence of 3 versions based on >> 3 different Slack distros easy to digest. > >This is incorrect. You know it is incorrect (because I told >you before). Are you intentionally trying to confuse people? Anyone who starts at your page and uses the links from that point is going to find 3 versions (based on 3 dif versions of SlackWare). That you may not refer to one of them specifically as a BL package will not help new people who are there for the first time. >> I had visions of people downloading Slack v8.x binaries to >> plug into BL v1.x etc. > >Then perhaps you should leave the BL explanations to me. >I have no such visions. I am not satisfied with your explanations (see above). >> There is a BL webpage that seems to have fallen between the >> cracks > >Which one is that? You have the hammer, you find it. ;-) >> and is only linked to from the hotlist when using older >> BL v1.x and LINKS. > >The hotlist has changed many times since BasicLinux 1.0. >URLs kept dying or moving. If it was 'dead' I would've said it was a 404. >> Sorting this out to try to make it understandable for new >> people who have not been following this along is time consuming > >Then don't do it. Simply link to the homepage and let me >"make it understandable for new people". I think I'll opt for the "don't do it" suggestion. >> his reply to me (posted here earlier) was that Steven had moved >> files without telling him. > >I moved the files only after Chris told me he had copied of all >of them to the new site. Editing the links after that was his >problem. I only know what I am told, I'm not a psychic and don't 'assume' much of anything. You read his reply, I posted it here. >> As I said I have 2045 external links and can't spend all of my >> time on just BasicLinux link chasing > >Then stop chasing links. Just link to the homepage and your >"problem" disappears. I was waiting for a more reasonable reply hoping to resolve this amicably. I see I wasted more time. I will make the necessary changes that I deem necessary and wish you all the luck you are entitled to. You are not entitled to more of my time, I have other areas that require my attention right now. 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
