Linux-Advocacy Digest #888, Volume #26 Sun, 4 Jun 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The sad Linux story (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) (abraxas)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ("Come Home")
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Mig Mig)
Re: What distribution is most popular? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit! (Mig Mig)
Re: What distribution is most popular? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OpenBSD security Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Grant Boyle)
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit! ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (Arthur)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Cost to Operate MICROSOFT OS! ("Robert Moir")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I Nuked Linux...Win 2K is Light Years Ahead. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I Nuked Linux...Win 2K is Light Years Ahead. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is so stable... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Date: 4 Jun 2000 12:41:15 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Lets take windows, It is unable to see directories on my
>> Linux partition, God knows why, Linux can :^D .
>
>Windows doesn't have an installable file system that understands Linux
>partitions, whilst Linux does understand Windows partitions. So?
>
>Maybe one of the Linux developers should write one for Windows?
Linux users don't need it, Windows users might. However, I thought
there already was an e2fs filesystem add-in for windows. I've
forgotten where I saw it, but it should be on the usual Windows
freeware sites. I don't need it because my machines are all
networked and thus have no trouble sharing files from one
OS to another.
But, back to the problem of Staroffice not seeing your vfat
mounted partition. Is it actually mounted as vfat (not dos)
and what happens when you try to browse through the mount
point?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: 4 Jun 2000 17:51:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karl Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Stephen S. Edwards II wrote in message <8h4anc$n3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> : >And exactly what is in MacOS X that isn't in WindowsNT? Please do
> : >enlighten us. If your answer is going to be UNIX interoperability,
> : >please save your breath.
> : USB Support
> Heh. You didn't exactly get me there, but you did nick me. ;-)
He got you there.
> Actually, USB support is in WindowsNT v5, aka Windows2000. But it is not
> present in WindowsNT v4.0.
> --
Which is exactly what was said.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Come Home" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 17:52:09 GMT
"Steven Smolinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Come Home <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Rich Canadians will not tell the secret of wealth creation
> >with less income to your arrogant working poor Americans.
>
> That's because it doesn't exist.
>
What you don't know may surprise you.
> >Neither the Canadian media nor US media will tell you
> >the truth. Even those Canadians who moved to US for "big
> >money" did not know what they missed until it's too late.
>
> Actually, I've looked quite far into this matter, when
> deciding if I should expatriate myself to the US. If I
> get a job doing the exact same thing (in the few states
> I investigated), I will have more money, even after
> paying for things like medical insurance, whcih I pay taxes
> for up here.
As a Canadian, I also looked quite far into the matter during
the past ten years witnessing more than three hundred
hi-tech workers within my environments moving to US.
But years past, few of those who moved to US are better
off than those who stayed.
> All in all, foolish Canadians try to convince themselves and
> others that our ridiculous tax rate and inefficient socialist
> wealth-distribution schemes are a net benefit to the taxpayers.
All in all, smart Canadians try to turn everything into their
advantage.
> They are not.
It depends. No one will tell you the opportunities. You have to
figure things out by yourself. For example, very few Canadians
know that they can even make money by just owning and living
in a house. What you don't know makes the difference.
> And so, someday, I will expatriate myself, pay for medical
> insurance, and be able to afford a better car. Sweet.
>
> Steve
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 17:53:59 GMT
Mac's fully sucks from hardware to software. It has always been
so and it will always be the same. No matter which are the Mac
fanatic users claims, Amiga was always better, NT is really better,
and now that they're unixizing MacOS (was it really a OS ?), GNU/Linux
is better, as it is FreeBSD or whatever :-) Just looking for flames.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 4 Jun 2000 17:56:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'll be impressed when NT goes B1. I think Linux might be
> able to do so, given the extremely limited info I have at this time.
> We might have to give up some "creature comforts" such as supermount,
> audio-CD playing, and such, though.
Theres no reason to have a B1 classified device in your house.
:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:01:00 +0200
James wrote:
> Given the current rate of Linux and NT development I guess Linux may catch
> up (in terms of usability on the Desktop) in about 2 to 5 years. At that
> stage we should see some desktop users (i.e. the 96% not using Linux)
> migrating to Linux.
Wrong! For me as a previous Windows user and currently working in the
supporting business support Windows, its clear that Windows is "surpassed"
for a very long time. Forgetting the usability and looking at the
internals there is no way that Windows comes close to Linux or any other
Unix or Unix based OS. F.ex. take a look at the famous dll hell and the
Windows registry.. You really dont want to know the manbo jambo that is
necessary to make Windows behave properly....... its simply unbeleavable
that Windows is used so much as it is
Regarding usability.. f.ex. how logic is it that to shut down the system
you have to click on the "start" button.. take a look at the "find"
command.. its that dialog logical??
Regarding usability Windows is one bad - maybe the worst - example of a GUI
that is unlogic, unconsistent and ugly. If you want to read something
abaout usability take a look at http://useit.com -Jakob Nielsens website
Cheers
PS. Usability!=Good looks
PPS. Interfaces on Linux also stink - both Gnome and KDE
> Any other guesses?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: What distribution is most popular?
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:04:59 GMT
jmt wrote:
>
> I was just curious on which Linux distribution is the most popular that is
> run by most users.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
Most popular would have to be probably Redhat followed by Debian..
Best would probably have to be Mandrake 7.1 or Suse 6.4
It used to be Slackware 5 years ago.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:06:55 +0200
James wrote:
> You're right. There really is no perfect OS. Even Win2k has given many
> persons problems. I have used it at the office (on a Dell P2/350 without
> problems) - for which I'm thankful. But at home I have had some problems on
> my VIA-based PC. But no other OS - perhaps excluding NT4 - touches it in
> terms of usability and stability. Linux may promise stability, but it does
> not offer usability. For example, I loaded RHL 6.2 only to discover it does
> not support USB - incredible but true (yes, I know I am supposed to upgrade
> the kernel to get rudimentary USB support - as if I had infinite time to
> fart around ...).
Tell me.. did your NT4 support USB?
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: What distribution is most popular?
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:07:10 GMT
Bit Twister wrote:
>
> You could get a feel for the number from
>
> http://counter.li.org/reports/machines.html
>
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 14:38:25 GMT, jmt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I was just curious on which Linux distribution is the most popular that is
> >run by most users.
I read this and couldn't believe Debian was #3 and Slackware was still
a close 2nd!
That Slackware has some tremendous staying power!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Grant Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OpenBSD security Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 14:20:28 -0400
On 3 Jun 2000 22:30:08 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
<snip>
>But I do need those services and I need them most on the
>machine that is most likely to contain data worth stealing.
You probably don't need *all* services enabled on *every* machine
though. The point is to reduce the risk of as of yet unknown
vulnerabilities by not enabling things you don't need.
<snip>
>Of course, but making claims about the system being secure because
>it isn't running services by default doesn't give me a warm
>fuzzy feeling about running it when you need the services.
Someone in charge of security that has a warm fuzzy feeling does not
give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Actually I suspect the OpenBSD team would be the first to say that
daemons like BIND and Sendmail are very likely to contain as of yet
unknown vulnerabilities. Without disabling services by default, the
claim would not stand up for long.
The prudent thing is to take precautions to reduce the risk.
Disabiling by default, running in a chroot jail, running as a non-root
user, avoiding immature versions, etc are all techniques that can be
used to reduce risk. These techniques are available to most unix
systems of course but OpenBSD tends to implement them by default.
I will agree though that such claims make me uncomfortable (especially
given the comments on 2.6 errata 022). I do however understand the
need to promote the project and help raise awareness. In a time of
massive Linux attention, it may be a necessary evil.
<snip>
>Why not just run BIND 8?
I suspect they chose to avoid the (at the time) still immature BIND
8.x series. In retrospect this turned out to be a fairly good decision
as it helped avoid a few problems. Keep in mind that there is nothing
stopping you from installing BIND 8 on your OBSD machine if that is
truly what you want.
--Grant
http://www.sans.org/topten.htm
================================================
All Nature is but art, unknown to thee,
All chance direction which thou can'st not see;
All discord harmony, not understood,
All partial evil universal good,
And in spite of pride in erring Reason's spite,
One Truth is clear, whatever is is right.
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:12:31 GMT
Keep a partition for programs
Another for users data
Another for system
As Linux or Unix :-)
Keep a registry copy at one of those partitions
Reinstall whole Windows 98 SE to the same directory it was
Import previously saved registry
That's all ... less than an hour
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:59:35 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> OK please give me an example of how to use smbfs. It's mentioned in the
> documentation, but that's it. I found the documentation on smbmount but
> precious little else.
To quote the smbmnt(8) man page: ".. refer to the smbfs.txt file in
the Linux kernel Documentation directory." It's not hyperlinked,
but for anyone knowledgeable enough to need that info, that would
seem to be sufficient.
(It's under /usr/doc/kernel/filesystems - I'm sure that next
you'll be whining about how hard that is to find. Or you
could just do 'locate smbfs.txt' if your distribution uses
a different directory structure)
> Piss off, huh?
Hey - good argument!
> You don't like a little criticism huh? Is that the state of Linux huh?
It's not the criticism - it's the ineptness and ignorance you display
in this and other posts.
> Can't take the heat, huh? Perhaps you all ought to do us a favour and get
> outta the kitchen!
Trite - please try for more originality.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:27:18 GMT
Black Dragon wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:54:52 +0200,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `James' wrote:
>
> >Given the current rate of Linux and NT development I guess Linux may catch
> >up (in terms of usability on the Desktop) in about 2 to 5 years. At that
> >stage we should see some desktop users (i.e. the 96% not using Linux)
> >migrating to Linux.
> >
> >Any other guesses?
>
> Linux has surpassed Windows by a long shot. (not much to surpass, really) It's
> up to the rest of the world to catch up to Linux. It's *not* the other way
> around, like you are implying.
>
> --
> Black Dragon
I totally agree with the Dragon.
Let's examine the facts.
Linux has a 3 to 1 networking superiority!
Linux does not blue screen under a heavy load!
Linux does not allow a single process to crash the entire OS!
Linux is capable or greater memory and disk management!
Linux has a faster filing system!
Linux has a superior filing system!
Linux has hundreds of applications, databases, development tools, toys,
business and scientific software,
and much more all on the disks you buy your distribution on. W2K is
just an operating system.
The KDE which I'm most framiliar with, has the same functionality as the
W2K desktop with Cut and Paste,
right and left click capabilities, file managers can be turned into web
browsers, a built in E-mail client,
a build in news client,,,, plus more windows tricks like up to 8
windows desktops in one X sesssion!
Linux allows users to become Root in order to make changes when
necessary without forcing them to log off!
No 180 process limit!
Superior support built in for ISDN, DSL, Cable Modems, Regular Modems!
Superior TCP-IP stack!
Superior DHCP service!
Linux can act as a DNS server!
Linux can be set up from the same software to act as a workstation, a
server or both!
Superior gaming capability thru a faster kernel!
Linux has support for as much hardware as W2K does now!
Linux has USB support which actually WORKS!
Linux has DVD support which actually WORKS!
Linux is roughly twice as fast as W2k on the same hardware!
Linux is 1/10 the cost of W2k or BETTER depending on workstation or
server discussions!
I can install my Linux from MY CD's on 1,000,000 machines for freinds
and after the end of that
I wouldn't be in jail!
Any software I write for the GNU will be shared by the WORLD as my
personal gift!
And I get to share THEIR GREAT software also!
I can sell Linux if I want to, make up my own distribution!
I can run Linux on an Apple or Mac or Power PC or Amiga or Sun Sparc or
even mainframes!
My applications are truely portable! No such portability exists with
ANY other OS besides maybe
BSD!
I could go on but I'm getting tired here!
The list is almost GD endless! I even found a couple of 3d cadcam
programs on this thing the other day!
Do you realize it's taken me nearly a month of 2 hour evenings to just
start up and examine all the
software I got with this $45 distribution of Suse 6.4!
GEEZEEEE.... A Month! Say at least 50 hours of my spare time just to
review my operating systems
capabilities!
And if that isn't enough for you, you can go out to the internet and
download even more for free!
My distribution has close to 2000 peices of software whilst Debian is
claiming 4,000 on their CD set!
Think of that! 4,000 programs! 4,000 plus the Debian version of Linux
for I think it's like $6.50!
I've got more things you can create HTML web pages with here than I ever
knew existed!
I have my OWN apache web server built right into my OS so I can test my
web pages out before
they hit the net!
Anybody who can even remotely claim that Windows is still in the running
after having exerienced all
that I have here,,,, you just have to own stock in the company...
That's all I can figure...
W2K is a dessert compared to my Suse 6.4....
A dessert of nothingness...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Cost to Operate MICROSOFT OS!
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:37:46 +0100
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Remember back when we were having the total cost of ownership debates!
>
> Can't you really say that Microsoft is FAR MORE COSTLY, especially when
> most business's who've got Microsoft everything have their E-business's
> shut down due to virus attacks.
>
> Let's look at a typical Microsoft office policy manual this week!
I thought you said later on it was YOUR office policy?
> #1. No more E-mail attachments!
> #2. Do not offer your E-mail address to relatives or freinds!
> #3. Discourage giving out your E-mail address to customers!
> #4. Web Browsing is forbidden!
> #5. You may not download anything off the net without prior management
> approval!
> #6. The sending of intra-company attachments if discouraged unless
> absolutely necessary!
>
>
> These are actual policies from MY office and 3 other offices of freinds
> of mine.
Thought so. Apparently you work for / with idiots who have squirrels living
inside their brains.
> Could you NOT say that Microsoft's total cost of ownership is far higher
> since
> we've cut our CUSTOMERS off from doing E-business with us!
>
> Isn't that a little fucking stupid????
Yes, your employers obviously are a little fucking stupid. There I said it.
However, unless you work for MSFT what has that got to do with Microsoft?
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:39:25 +0200
Drestin Black wrote:
> Nope, I did NOT say that and I do not claim that. You knwo that but are
> purposely being offensive. I can give you the URL to teh document on the MS
> site that tells you EXACTLY step by step, starting with a NT4 CD and blank
> hard drive how to get to a C2 certified ("evaluated") configuration. It's
> not hard.
Youre the secont wintroll today that does not understand what a certificat
is. Do some study on the matter before further posts! (imperativ)
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:41:34 +0200
Drestin Black wrote:
> You are correct, I was not writing exactly accurately. I do recognize the
> difference from "Evaluated" to "Certified" - but I think you get my point.
Explain it.
> Thanks for reminding me - the linux weenies are always nitpicking cause they
> can't fidn anything else to tear down. Next they'll claim that C2 is
> useless... (like TPC-C and anything else NT does better) sigh...
Is that a tear i can spot there Drestin??
I wish i was such a sensitive person .
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:47:30 +0200
Marc Schlensog wrote:
>
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 6bq_4.16878$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [snip]
> > > > NT itself cannot be, no OS can.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > No, you are the idiot. You CANNOT certify an OS. Period. This is an
> > undisputable fact. learn to read the specs boyo.
>
> But WinNT4 is C2-certified? How might that be possible?
> Isnīt after all NT still an OS? Or did I get there something
> wrong?
Youre such an optimist.. Drestin will find a way out of this one :-)
> <Cutīnīpaste>
>
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 8h8r3m$pg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > NT, as an OS, is C2-able. The hardware it's on is merely a small part
> of
> > the total security and design of the system.
>
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > NT has been C2 certified. This is a fact. It is undebatable. You know
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> </Cutīnīpaste>
>
> Hey Dres, one day I gonna getcha! And Iīm pretty fucking close!
HaHaha.. its easy to get Drestin - very easy.. but lets be nice ehhh? Its
just a silly bashing game afterall
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:49:43 GMT
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:21:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>*Or* they could simply decide that they seem to be running just fine,
>>and that this whole "upgrade path" nonsense is something their competitors
>>may worry about. I suspect that would increase operating profits quite
>>dramatically for such companies.
>What do they do when they employ someone and need a new license?
Get out the Win98 CD, and install it on a new computer. Yes, it is
piracy --- but the only entity that could prosecute them for it has
decided that they don't care anymore, remember? So who cares.
Bernie
--
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to
William Clinton
US President since 1993
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I Nuked Linux...Win 2K is Light Years Ahead.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:49:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I'm happily watching Jerry Springer re-runs on my
>TV card while i am typing this. Of curse the card
>is not soppurted with linuxx.
Just to address this "point" from Steve's gutter personality: I am
happily watching SBS (Australians multicultural channel) on my TV card
while typing this. Of course, trying to use this card under Windows
was something better attempted by masochists, because not only would
it frequently hang the whole machine, but the software also had rather
peculiar ideas about who was to decide where the input focus was to go....
Bernie
--
Omnia mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
All things change, and we change with them
Lothar I
Emperor, 795-855
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I Nuked Linux...Win 2K is Light Years Ahead.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:49:46 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>WINDOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> BET THAT SCRUED UP UR STINKY LINUX NEWSREEDERS.
>I've always reasoned there would be a marked for Microsoft in Arkansas.
Ahh, come on, give him *some* credit --- I have personally used a newsreader
that would crash hard when encountering overlong lines. It crashed the
whole machine, too --- not surprisingly, as it was some Novell thing running
under DOS. Made reading groups with deeply nested threads kinda hard (the
References: lines tended to grow beyond the allowed line length).
Boy was I glad when I finally got my Unix account and could go back to
using nn.
Bernie
--
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is so stable...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:49:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) writes:
>Ive never seen a Linux app do a stack trace, I think your confused
>with Windows. Linux apps produce core dumps.
You can get all sorts of scary numbers showing up on your console
when something goes wrong in kernel space. Unmounting a filesystem
is happening in kernel space, and is using code that probably hasn't
been used in a long time.
My usual reaction to seeing those hex numbers scroll by is to open up
the machine and check out whether I have to buy one or two new fans
(most of my machines are Dual-CPU). Can be quite annoying, too, as for
example PentiumPro fans are hard to come by around here.
Bernie
--
Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is
governed?
Count Oxenstierna
Swedish statesman, 1583-1654
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
