Linux-Advocacy Digest #860, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 17:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) (Robert Heininger)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
ATTN: abraxas -- prove that HFS is journaled (was Re: Peter Norton is one smart
dude) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Rumors ... (codifex maximus)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (abraxas)
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (abraxas)
Re: Drestin Black is one clueless dude (abraxas)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Drestin Black is one clueless dude (George Marengo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:39:38 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:37:14 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `ax' wrote:
>: "Robert Heininger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: >
>: >
>: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:28:38 GMT,
>: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `ax' wrote:
>: >
>: >
>: > >: "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: > >: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: > >: > It was the Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:44:59 GMT...
>: > >: > ...and Robert Heininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: > >: > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:00:33 +0200,
>: > >: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Matthias Warkus' wrote:
>: > >: > >
>: > >: > >
>: > >: > > >: It was the Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:17:46 GMT...
>: > >: > > >: ...and ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: > >: > > >: >
>: > >: > > >: > "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: > >: > > >: > news:8b62hc$g8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: > >: > > >: > > BTW, little known facts about penquins.
>: > >: > > >: > >
>: > >: > > >: > > Penquins are quite clumsy on land.
>: > >: > > >: > >
>: > >: > > >: > > But in the sea, penquins fly like birds when they swim.
>: > >: > > >: > >
>: > >: > > >: >
>: > >: > > >: > But in Linux, all penguins are lazy sitting with round belly.
>: > >: > > >: > They cannot walk or fly. They cannot even stand up
>: > >: > > >: > with fat belly. Linux penguins must have been eating
>: > >: > > >: > too much "free" stuff.
>: > >: > > >:
>: > >: > > >: Ever played "Tux the Penguin: A Quest For Herring"? The Linux
>: penguin
>: > >: > > >: can indeed run, jump and swim. Maybe even fly.
>: > >: > >
>: > >: > >
>: > >: > > Is that a Linux game? Playstion's and Dreamcast's are for playing
>: games,
>: > >: not
>: > >: > > computers. Why even bother, if it is?
>: > >: >
>: > >: > Your lack of clue is cute[0], but your cute signature lacks clue.
>: > >: >
>: > >: > A five-line Figlet signature! Jesus Christ!
>: > >:
>: > >: A really smart signature!
>: > >:
>: > >: - a big "L" shape at the bottom.
>: > >: - a word "Linux" on top of the "L" shape.
>: > >: - a "<" shape at the end of the "Linux".
>: > >:
>: > >: It means, "Linux" is being pushed ("<") to the corner ("L"),
>: > >: which is the choice of the GNU Generation.
>: > >:
>: > >: What about the middle file://_// ?
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: > YIKES! I get the point. Thanks all!
>: >
>: >
>: > IMO : Playstation's and Dreamcast's are for games, and IMO computers are
>: not.
>: >
>: > Fact: My opinion means nothing!
>: >
>:
>: Your signature means a lot. Here is another one:
>:
>: - a big "L" shape representing a chair
>: - a big word "LINUX" sitting on a chair
>: - a big "<" shape representing a lock
>:
>: It means: lock "Linux" to a chair, which is the "Choice
>: of the GNU Generation".
>:
>: Now, everything in Linux are "sitting" including all
>: heavy belly Linux penguins and "Linux" itself.
>:
>: Keep sitting!
BZZZT! Wrong.
It means:
1) Spreading the word about the Linux revolution.
2) That I'm proud about choosing to be a member of the GNU generation.
3) It's not commercial spam.
4) Your mileage may vary.
5) Optional: If folks don't like it, I suggest that they put me in their kill
filters, and/or ignore my postings.
Robert Heininger
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:44:22 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:44:32 -0700, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Richard Russell wrote:
>>
>> What free spreadsheet has equivalent functionality to Lotus 123 from SmartSuite
>> 96, the last 16 bit windows 3.1 version?
StarOffice 5.1 does better Excel import than Smartsuite 97, actually.
>
>Why the requirement that it be free? Have you tried all of the
>commercially available Unix spread sheet programs?
>
>Take a look at:
>
>http://www.linux.org/apps/business.html
>
>and tell me how much of this have you tried/seen.
>
>> Go on, list them Jedi.
>
>See above. Xess is pretty good.
Xess is actually quite pathetic. A pox on you for recommending it.
>
>> Sufficient for a wide range of users does not equate to equivalent
>> functionality, Quit moving the goalposts. And answer the question.
>
>It isn't necessary to have equivalent functionality. It is only
>necessary that the system have the functionality that the user needs.
[deletia]
Quite. The Windows Novice that doesn't use 90% of msoffice
could be quite content with gnumeric even. Without something
resembling a user profile, it's quite hard to say. Mind you,
there are sites out on the web that give serious critiques
of the various Linux office apps relative to given situations
and include suggestions to remedy the shortcomings.
This is generally what is lacking in the typical MS Shill
approach to the situation.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: ATTN: abraxas -- prove that HFS is journaled (was Re: Peter Norton is one
smart dude)
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:47:14 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > hahahahahahaah - well, as you have so readily proven that is not the case.
: > You have no idea what a journaling file system is nor where one might be
: > found (outside of NTFS that is).
: 1. you seem to be able to divide by zero
Meaningless jibberish.
: 2. you think "su" means "superuser"
You're telepathic now?
: 3. you dont know what "su" does in the first place
I'd wager Drestin knows leagues more about any OS than you do.
: 4. you have a stupid name
Oh, okay "Abraxas".
: 5. XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, ext3, BFS (now available for linux:
: http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA008030/bfs/), UFS, etc, etc, etc.
Hmmm... now this is a true example of "Polish boxing"[0].
Please explain how each of the points above have anything to do with
proving your claim that HFS or HFS+ are journaled filesystems.
BTW, JSK, rattling off the names of other filesystems doesn't scare people
like me or Drestin. So, now you three choices:
1.) Show us undeniable proof that HFS or HFS+ is a journaled filesystem.
2.) Admit that you were wrong, and merley speaking from your rear
oriface.
3.) Clam up, and take your licks like a man.
: Now then, since you seem to have such sound knowledge of filesystem
: journaling, care to compare and contrast ext3 and BFS?
This diversionary baloney of yours has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with
proving your claim. __Y O U__ made the claim, so __Y O U__ are the one
who has to back it up. It is not up to us to disprove what you said
(though I gather, we already have).
: Which is superior? Why? Where can UFS be found? Whats so special about
: ReiserFS that it gets to have all those extra letters?
All of this crap is irrelevent. Prove your claim, or shut your yap.
: Awaiting your speedy reply,
And I await yours.
[0] Placing one hand over your face, and using the other one to swing
blindly at your opponent.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: codifex maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:45:13 -0600
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> codifex maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > > All we need from Microsoft and it's partners is a promise not to
> > > develop Windows-centric hardware; publish all calls for every
> > > piece of equipment. The source code to Windows would do nicely,
> > > unless Microsoft would care to cooperate in other, less barbaric
> > > ways....
> >
> > Craig,
> >
> > I respect your opinion... please elaborate on why you want them to
> > release the source code.
>
> I would love them to release their code voluntarily, but I don't
> believe they should be _forced_ to open all of Windows.
>
> > Is it because you think we'll get the drivers? I think not... remember,
> > the drivers are the IP of the companies who supplied them... not
> > Microsoft's.
>
> That is true, but this is the only real issue that 3rd-party OSes have
> against Microsoft. We want to be able to write our operating systems
> in peace, with full access to the hardware that Microsft writes for
> (and gets written for). Everything else is just fluff -- the
> preloading arguments, while good, really don't get us anywhere we want
> to be.
>
> So, lets say that eBuiz wants to write a proprietary driver for
> Windows only. Someone from another OS should be able to ask how it
> interoperates under Windows and get proper answers. Since they are
> writing their driver for an OS with a monopoly, they should be
> obligated to help out other driver authors with their code (or even
> provide their own). If they want to keep their drivers secret, then
> they could simply require an NDA with the proper authority, and
> shouldn't have to give out answers to everyone. Of course, the simple
> solution would be to provide the source for the Windows driver or
> provide complete, public specs on the hardware.
>
> I'm sure it wouldn't be that simple, but any other action against
> Microsoft seems to be more of a "Let's burn 'em!" attitude than
> anything useful.
>
> > Is it because you think that the source code will help Open Source?
> > Maybe... but we likely wont be able to include any of the source in GPL
> > works because Microsoft will retain ownership of the source. And, works
> > like WINE will likely get accused of copying.
>
> WINE should be used for porting, and not much more. We (I) don't want
> to run Win32 applications under Linux.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I maintain that the source they may or may not release isn't worth
> > the media it's dumped on. I'm not an advocate for keeping the
> > source unknown - far from it. Rather, let them release the source
> > if they want but... but, I wont agree that that is the end of it.
> > Releasing the source should not end the case because it will not
> > solve the underlying problem or take any real weight off the 800lb
> > gorilla; 'tis but a slap on the wrist!
>
> True, and if they do release their source, it should be of their own
> free will and not the DOJ.
>
> > Breaking Microsoft up into separate companies with separate
> > accounting and separate shareholders will help alot; look what it
> > did for competition and market health in the communications
> > industry! Divestiture will probably make Microsoft more valuable to
> > it's shareholders, strengthen the fabled invisible wall between OS
> > and Applications development, benefit users by decoupling the
> > Applications from enforced dependency on one OS, require the OS
> > company to compete with the other OS companies for the title of the
> > best platform for Applications, etc... Heck, divide that 800lb
> > gorilla into four 200lb gorillas and make them compete against each
> > other!
>
> Yes, but that is very drastic. To some extent, Microsoft earned their
> current position. I don't believe that they are infallible; I believe
> Open Source software will simply get better and better. With AT&T,
> you had one company *physically* owning a bunch of lines, which made
> the barrier to entry very high for other companies. The divestiture
> razed those barriers.
>
> With Microsoft there is no barrier. As long as you can take a generic
> PC and load another OS on it, you're fine (which brings me back to my
> original solution -- make sure that this *is* the case). We don't
> need a handout, and neither does Apple, Be, or whoever -- we just need
> parity, a base from which everyone can start.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
Hmm... I'm not sure we disagree on much. However, I feel that the
barriers (however abstract or intangible) to entry are there and those
barriers are manufactured by the incumbent OS's owner.
The barriers I'm speaking of are definitely intangible and are a product
of momentum and the incumbent's financial/marketing wizardry; the
incumbent product has been the primary OS for the platform for a number
of years and is expected to continue in same position due to said
momentum and marketing success.
The argument is not whether incumbent got where they are because they
earned it or not; earned has many connotations. The argument is: Did
they get to where they are using lawful means? Do they keep their
marketshare based on lawful means? Have they unlawfully expunged a
competitor? Does their lawful means hurt competition such that
consumers are harmed?
However much I dislike regulation... the invisible hand has been
battered into unconsciousness in the computer industry.
--
Codifex Maximus
I'm the rat that jumped out of the maze.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:46:04 -0700
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 2000 18:31:37 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>That a GUI? I don't think so...
> >Sure it is, Slrn behaves just like a gui in a xterm.
>
> Not in konsole, which is what I'm using at the moment. It seems to ignore all
> mouse input. Could be konsoles fault tho.
>
> slrn is still not like a GUI in any way.
SLRN in an XTerm-like Window is a GUI. This point cannot be argued.
It's user interface display is a graphical display, its user interface
is a user interface, so therefore it is a graphical user interface.
Not allowing or using mouse input does not indicate that a user
interface is not graphical. All that it indicates is that the user
interface is not pointer compatible.
> The input dialog of the app should have a big help button, and reject values
> that are gibberish too.
Which requires that the program be limited to allowing only those things
that the programmer/designer was able to think of before hand.
There goes ease of use . . .
> Lots of people have problems with rc.d/* lilo.conf XF86Config .fvwmrc and
> various others too. sendmail.cf is just the canonical example.
Which simply proves my point: not knowing something does not prove that
that something is difficult to use.
It's not a black and white issue: the XConfig file, the sendmail config
file . . . all are examples of a *CHOICE* as to the trade off between
ease of use and minimizing the cost of learning.
What you fail to admit (or, maybe you just don't know), is that it is
always possible to create another user interface that *RESTRICTS* your
choices and your level of control . . . it isn't possible to take a
restrictive user interface and *INCREASE* your level of choice and
control.
Examples of this are, of course, are found primarily in the Unix
environment. The M4 configuration front end to sendmail is one example,
while the graphical configuration utility for the X server is another.
Now, I've shown you how to make creating an X config file as "easy" as
anything under Windows. . . its your turn to show me how to exercise as
much control over my Windows display as I can under X. . . by, say,
showing me how to use a non-standard display resoltion.
> >Your "restart" was carefully worded tho, so lets be plain, we only require
> >a restart of SLRN, for some config changes, NEVER the Linux OS.
>
> Just major components, Like the X Server - when did you last change colour
> depth on the fly?
When did you last run two entirely different GUI's at the same time on
two different displays?
Show me how to have two different color depths on the same screen at the
same time in Windows?
I can do both of the above. . . can you?
Every system has it's limitations. Windows just has a lot more
limitations than Unix/Linux does.
>
> Most Windows restarts are onlt needed to exit and restart the GUI - hold
> shift when choosing restart, and it goesto DOS and back. Just like 3.1,
> and for all non server usage, the same as killing and restarting X.
Dead wrong. Killing off the "GUI" on Windows kills off Windows. It is
*NOT* the same *AT* *ALL* as restarting the X server!
> Seperate programs, seperate config. Great, isn't it.
Yep. It is great. Separate programs *SHOULD* have separate
configuration interfaces.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:52:15 GMT
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Drestin Black wrote:
: > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > >
: > >
: > > Drestin Black wrote:
: > >
: > > >
: > > > maybe Linux will catchup some day later too and claim Linus wrote it.
: > >
: > > If he writes a JFS he has a right to claim that he wrote it. Implementing
: > is
: > > different from inventing. M$ often `confuse' the two.
: > >
: > > -Ed
: > >
: >
: > and if MS writes something they can claim to have implemented it. if they
: > write something no one else has written before they can claim to have
: > invented it. So...?
: They tend to implement things (badly, or not - it doesn't matter) and claim to
: have invented them.
This is true, but then again, many corporations are guilty of this. Apple
and IBM are not exactly clean in this regard.
I think it's mostly P.R. and marketing baloney. I tend to ignore it.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:53:49 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:38:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:29:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:04:48 GMT, "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Has it occurred to everyone that in it's 9th or 10th year, Windows/DOS
>>>didn't support the SBLive!? Or that all of these sound editing programs
>>>likewise wouldn't have worked in the DOS of the time?
>>
>>When Linux can fully exploit the features of a given piece of hardware
>>and the typically bundled software that allows the use of these
>>features, as well as Windows or better, then it can claim that the
>>given piece of hardware is supported.
>>Until then........
>
> This is a bit disengenous. Until you can demonstrate that the
> median Windows user would find your particular shilling standard
> relevant, then you can bitch about what Linux does or doesn't do.
And until you or Linux for that matter can provide the same level of
support/features that the consumer paid for on a given piece of
hardware it cannot be considered fully supported under Linux.
And until that time, every person who claims to a potential Linux user
that the given piece of hardware is supported under Linux is lying by
omission because the chances are that persons frame of reference is
the Windows version and boy is he/she in for a shock.
It that such a difficult concept for you to understand?
That's the last I will say on the subject.
Steve
"Linux; The operating system that leaves the audience wanting less"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:56:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> once again you are could not possibly be more wrong. NFS is NOT a journaled
> file system - you only wish it were. Provide proof or go back under your
> bridge. Maybe you and MiG can play yank-yank together.
Dresden, honey, sweetie, babydoll....Listen....
Remember when we agreed to back off?
Back off. :)
Remember me yet?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:58:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> once again you are could not possibly be more wrong. NFS is NOT a journaled
> file system -
Ok so...
1. dresden can divide by zero
2. dresden doesnt know anything about unix, let alone what SU is.
3. dresden thinks that NFS is not only the filesystem that MacOS runs,
but that it is also not journaled.
> you only wish it were. Provide proof or go back under your
> bridge.
I'm terribly sorry, but I cannot possibly prove that NFS is a journaling
filesystem.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin Black is one clueless dude
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:59:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Abraxas is claiming that the Macintosh filesystem, HFS/HFS+ is a
> journaling filesystem. He is entirely incorrect.
I think ill be nice and assume that "Macintosh" was a typo and that you
actually meant "MacOS".
Because those keys are all very close to eachother on a keyboard dontcha know.
Yep.
If you need me, ill be over here, not working with computers and dividing by zero
for a while.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:05:06 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:53:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:38:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:29:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:04:48 GMT, "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has it occurred to everyone that in it's 9th or 10th year, Windows/DOS
>>>>didn't support the SBLive!? Or that all of these sound editing programs
>>>>likewise wouldn't have worked in the DOS of the time?
>>>
>>>When Linux can fully exploit the features of a given piece of hardware
>>>and the typically bundled software that allows the use of these
>>>features, as well as Windows or better, then it can claim that the
>>>given piece of hardware is supported.
>>>Until then........
>>
>> This is a bit disengenous. Until you can demonstrate that the
>> median Windows user would find your particular shilling standard
>> relevant, then you can bitch about what Linux does or doesn't do.
>
>
>And until you or Linux for that matter can provide the same level of
>support/features that the consumer paid for on a given piece of
>hardware it cannot be considered fully supported under Linux.
If they're aren't some SoundTraker junkie it really doesn't matter.
Infact, it's quite likely that they'll never get anywhere near a
$50 or $200 sound card simply due to the 'cheap over everything'
nature of the PC marke.
>
>And until that time, every person who claims to a potential Linux user
>that the given piece of hardware is supported under Linux is lying by
>omission because the chances are that persons frame of reference is
>the Windows version and boy is he/she in for a shock.
Hardly. This is the subtle lie inherent in your position.
>
>It that such a difficult concept for you to understand?
Yup. Most people likely don't even realize that there are things
they can do with their soundcards besides have programs shove wav
data at it. This is as true for a SoundBlaster Pro as it is for a
SoundBlaster Live.
[deletia]
Mind you, no one here should take YOUR word for what an SB Live
can or can't be made to do under Linux.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin Black is one clueless dude
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:05:55 GMT
On 28 Mar 2000 21:59:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Abraxas is claiming that the Macintosh filesystem, HFS/HFS+ is a
>> journaling filesystem. He is entirely incorrect.
>
>I think ill be nice and assume that "Macintosh" was a typo and that you
>actually meant "MacOS".
Have you been able to find a reference which describes HFS or HFS+ as
being a journaling file system?
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
