Linux-Advocacy Digest #959, Volume #26 Wed, 7 Jun 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Alan Baker)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: Bob's Law (Mayor)
Re: Linux is so stable... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the (Matt Gaia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[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: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 14:03:06 -0700
In article <393e9b7f$24$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 06/07/2000 at 10:50 AM,
> Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>> >> >The Mac OS failed because it was rejected by American business which
>> >> >adopted the Intel platform because of much superior software,
>> >
>> >> Superior in what way?
>> >
>> >There were at least 5 major word processing programs for the Intel
>> >platform in 1984 when these decisions were made, WordStar, Word,
>> >WordPerfect, Volkswriter, and one whose name I don't recall.
>> >
>> >Lotus 1-2-3 gave functionality on an order of magnitude greater than
>> >anything available for the Apples.
>
>> You mean like Excel?
>
>Actually before Excel there was another spreadsheet if memory serves. It
>couldn't hold a candle to either 1-2-3 or Excel. I remember, it was called
>Visicalc.
Right. Which ran on a platform less powerful than either the IBM PC or
the Macintosh: the Apple II
>
>> >
>> >From the start, the Intel platform machines could be networked and tied
>> >to
>> >mainframes.
>
>> Tied to the mainframe: yes. IBM thought that they could control the PC
>> industry and guide it by essentially turning desktop PCs into mainframe
>> terminals.
>
>That was Token Ring.
>
>> Networked to each other: references please. The first Macs were
>> networkable and the Macintosh Office was touted starting in March of
>> 1985 with the release of the LaserWriter (IIRC)
>
>Novell came out in late 1983 for the Intel platform.
>
>
>> >> >You certainly are. Only a true idiot on drugs and with serious
>> >> >mental
>> >> >disorders would consider a Mac superior to anything beyond an Atari.
>> >
>> >> Have you ever *used* one?????
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, yes. They are very, very, very limited in their choice
>> >of
>> >software lacking a serious spreadsheet,...
>
>> Excel.
>
>QED. Not even a valid choice for most businesses.
Excuse me? Excel is currently a _very_ valid choice for businesses; it's
the one most are using and the Mac version is file-compatible with the
version that most businesses choose (with some limitations since Office
2000, granted) and given that you can get client software to run a Mac
on an 98/NT/2K network, or a Novell network there's really no problem
using a Mac at such businesses.
>
>> >... a serious database program, etc.
>
>> FileMaker (ODBC compliant, cross-platform), 4D.
>
>A poor, weak imitation of DB2.
And the backend of DB2 runs on PCs?
>
>> >They totally lack expansion capability. Where, for example, is one
>> >going
>> >to install 4 additional hard disks?...
>
>> 3 internally and one via Firewire?
>
>Nope. I have in front of me the specs for a G4 Power Mac, the biggest they
>make. It has a maximum of 3 internal SCSI devices.
Actually, yup. I'll take a picture of a G4 tomorrow to prove it if you
like.
>
>> >...How many different video cards are
>> >available?...
>
>> Not as many as for PCs, but we manage.
>
>How many? I find only 2 on the web.
Perhaps you should look harder:
<begin>
3dfx Voodoo3 2000 PCI 3Dfx Interactive, Inc.
ATI Nexus GA ATI Technologies Inc.
ATI Nexus Rage 128 ATI Technologies Inc.
ATI Rage Orion 128 ATI Technologies Inc.
ATI Xclaim 3D ATI Technologies Inc.
ATI Xclaim TV ATI Technologies Inc.
ATI Xclaim VR ATI Technologies Inc.
ATI Xclaim VR 128 ATI Technologies Inc.
D1 Desktop 64 Digital Voodoo
Formac ProFormance 3 plus Formac Elektronik GmbH
VillageTronic MacMagic Village Tronic Marketing GmbH
VillageTronic MP 850 Village Tronic Marketing GmbH
<end>
And I didn't even try very hard.
>
>> >... How can I install 16 additional communications ports? How can I
>> >install four additional printer ports?...
>
>> <http://www.megawolf.com/fenris.html>
>
>Ferris doesn't provide printer ports at all. And it is infant technology
>compared to the choices for Intel platform hardware. They started shipping
>in 1996. I have had an eight port card in a PC since 1988.
You think they're the only ones who've ever done this? Silly man, you
could buy products like this going back to the days of the NuBus Macs
>
>> >... Where do I put a second and third
>> >CD Rom drive?...
>
>> <www.magma.com>
>
>Those all require an external box with its own space requirements, its own
>power supply, etc.
But you can have it if you want and your box takes up more space than a
bare G3. So what?
>
>> >... Which place do I install an internal Zip drive...
>
>> In the Zip bay?
>
>Not with 2 floppies you can't.
See below.
>
>> >... and a second
>> >floppy drive?
>
>> USB?
>
>That is external again.
You're breaking my heart. Poor baby has to use an external device.
Isawasawa, awwww.
>
>
>> >Plastic bubble toy seems just about a perfect description of a Mac. Its
>> >biggest option is the color of the bubble.
>> >
>
>> Right, Bob. How is life in fantasyland anyway?
>
>Well, I am sitting here at my Pentium III 500 MHz with five internal SCSI
>hard disks, a CD ROM, a CDRW, two floppies, a DAT tape drive, and a Zip
>drive. I have 10 Com Ports, 2 USB ports, 3 Parallel Ports, and a NIC - all
>in one box. This sort of power is not available in a single box Mac of any
>description. It has a 350 Watt Power Supply with dual fans. Other than the
>monitor and mouse, the only external I need is my scanner and two real
>modems. I could put two modems internally, I choose not to. You see, I
>only need one PCI slot for the Adaptec 2940W SCSI adapter which handles
>the hard disks, CD, and tape drive. I use the AGP slot for the Video. I
>use a single ISA slot for the 8 com ports. I use a PCI slot for the
>parallel ports. I use the built in IDE connection for the ATAPI Zip drive.
>I use the third PCI slot for the Ethernet card. I still have a PCI slot
>and an ISA slot available.
>
>That is a computer. The PowerMac, despite a much, much higher cost, cannot
>hold a candle to it. I would have cables out the gazoo were I to duplicate
>the hardware with a Mac. Right now I am using five external modems. Same
>number of cords as with a Mac. I am using two printer cables. Same as I
>would with the Mac. I have a keyboard and mouse, same as with the Mac. I
>have a video cord, same as the Power Mac. G4. I have a SCSI cable to the
>scanner, same as I would have with the Mac.
>
>But with the Mac I would have at least on additional power cord. An
>additional SCSI cable to the external drives. A cable to the zip drive. I
>would need additional floor space for the second box. I would need
>additional desk space for the zip drive. I likely would need TWO scsi
>cables since my hard disks are a combination of narrow and wide.
BFD. Let's see. Four internal drives on the Mac with firewire chaining
between 3 stacked devices: 1 HD, 1 CDRW and a DAT drive. Zip drive
internally and a USB floppy. One MegaWolf comm card for serial ports and
one card for parallel.
>
>And with the PowerMAC, I get a plastic case likely to be smashed in weeks
>by the vacuum cleaner. MY case is steel with a steel door over the
>external drives.
Ooh, steel. Of course if you can't handle vacuuming _around_ your
computer you'd need it.
>
>And, of course, with the Mac I would lose...
>... 1-2-3,
BFD. Excel.
>...DB/2,
I guess. There are other databases, you know.
>...SmartSuite,
And replace it with another office suite. BFD
>... REXX,
Huh?
>Novell,
Nope.
>...access to my other five machines,
Nope.
>... HPFS, etc.
>
>Yep, a plastic bubble playtoy accurately describes the Mac.
Whatever. Truth is I could come and rip out your PC and duplicate most
of the functionality you describe tomorrow.
Course, I'm not interested in doing that. But I do find your obsession
with your "real man's computer" fascinating from a psychological
viewpoint. <g>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 7 Jun 2000 21:12:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
>>
>>I think it is absolutely amazing that people have become so
>>Microsoft-brainwashed that they think 'interoperability'
>>means something between two programs on the same machine
>>and often describe even that as a technological accomplishment.
>>
>
>What's your beef with application interoperability? Oh, sorry, I
>forgot for a moment that you're one of the Unix-brainwashed. To you,
>the X server's plain-text "selection buffer" probably represents the
>ultimate in application interoperability.
Maybe you're missing the point.
Recently I was working at home when I had to evaluate the performance of a
genetic algorithm implementation over a range of different parameter values.
Too lazy to do this by hand I wrote a 10 line script to iterate over some
interesting parameter values, generating PostScript plots of each run using
gnuplot.
Finally all the plots (some 250 of them) were assembled into one big LaTeX
document which I converted to a .dvi file, which I converted to a PostScript
file, which I sent to a Sun machine on the other side of town, which sent it
to a printer that had the document ready for me to pick up by the next
morning.
Now I don't want to present this as some sort of accomplishment -- actually
what would have been an accomplishment is when I would have generated all
the data manually and then plotted them using a typewriter. Also, I'm sure I
could have done everything under (say) Windows /1/.
But to get the level of flexibility that the Unix solution gave me, I think
I would have had to download and install Perl, download and install gnuplot,
download and install a decent FTP client, download and install a decent
Telnet client, probably some other stuff -- in other words, I would have had
to do all the ``futzing'' that Windows advocates generally hold against
Unix.
You could think that I'm simply a sucker for Unix and that in my attempts to
recreate the Unix environment under Windows I am just asking for trouble.
But I don't think it's trouble I'm asking for. I think what I'm asking for
is standards and methods that promote flexibility and interoperability over
wizardry and featurism.
/1/ I admit, I am a clown when it comes to effective Windows use. How would
the Windows boffins have attacked the problem?
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 259 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bob's Law
From: Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 14:12:24 -0700
In article <PJy%4.30053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Mayor writes:
>
>>> Bob Lyday writes:
>
>>>> Bob's Law invoked. Tholen mentioned. Thread is now
>>>> officially dead.
>
>>> Illogical.
>
>> Since when has logic had anything to do with Usenet?
>
>Since I started posting. Perhaps even before that.
>
>
Typical pontification.
--
Come and see my new website!
http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell/bozosity.html
Generously donated and maintained by
THE Robert Fovell of CSMA fame.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux is so stable...
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 21:14:17 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:56:26 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Sometimes you have to consider the source...
>
>Keep wearing that blind spot. It suits you well.
>
>> Past a certain point, civility is wasted effort.
>
>You were never civil in the first place. You quickly fell to calling "you
>shithead liar".
Not at all. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt for
awhile. It was only until you started making grossly false
claims about very basic UI elements that I assumed the worse.
You're the delluded one.
You make very basic misstatements, on subjects where linux
is actually consistent with Windows practice, and then you
expect anyone to take you seriously?
Pulleeeze.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:14:00 -0500
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> It really sounds like the person does not really know how to use a computer.
> I find administrating a Windows system much more enjoyable than UNIX or
> Linux.
Oh god, please make it stop. I can't believe the way people pop off
with this stuff. Ten bucks says the guy making this statement hasn't
even tried using a Unix or Linux system. Trying to administer Windows
is a losing battle, because you've always got Windows trying to tell you
that you don't really want to do what you want to do. Then when you
think you've finally found a way to make Windows obey you, it pops up
some dumbass message to tell you that you have to be protected from
yourself. Something along the lines of "Bill Gates doesn't think you
need to do that with your computer, therefore, you will not be allowed
to continue." Remember, we only need 640K of RAM too.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gary Heston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > According to EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > herodotus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> > >> Putting my head up my own ass is the only thing that takes my
> > >> mind
> > >> off my pain when I have to use Windows.
> >
> > >Thanks for admitting where you keep your head. So what is so "painful"
> > >about Windows?
> >
> > 1) Administering it;
> >
> > 2) Using it.
> >
> > Those who have never tasted cake are satisfied with bread...
> >
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > --
> > Gary Heston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "We in the government knew when we got an email titled "ILOVEYOU" that
> > something was wrong." Senator Fred Thompson quoted by ZDNet
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:23:55 -0500
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> I was really trying to make the point that Windows is much better to use.
> The reason that I say this, is that Windows is GUI. Linux is more like the
> DOS/Windows combination. Sure there are some points which Linux surpasses
> Windows, but lets get real, I have more important things to do with my time
> than trying to figure out how to make a stupid computer do what it needs to
> do in order for me to get my work done. I think in time that more of the
> Linux programmers will realize that there needs to be standard interface in
> order to get everything working together. UNIX has suffered from this
> problem for a very long time. I believe that if the UNIX system developers
> had realized that they were to busy infighting to help the users. This is
> why Linux will ultimately suceed over Windows. At this current time, I find
> Linux/UNIX to be a bear to use. I have a much easier time to get everything
> that I need done in Windows. I will be nice to see how all this plays out in
> time, but I think that more people will have to realize that as long as the
> main system remains free, that everything else can be commercial. The Linux
> community should develop a standard API and all the developers use this API.
> This IMHO is what is preventing Linux from taking the desktop from Windows.
> Depsite the arguments of "dumbing down" the operating system that people
> argue, it makes it much easier to use if all the configurations that you do
> to your computer is wrapped in a GUI shell, and that is the only shell you
> see. The other thing that is messed up is this business of logging on to the
> computer. If the operating system was good, and you were not on a network,
> it would not allow remote administration except through a logon. If the user
> was accessing the system while at the system, then it SHOULD be ready to go
> when you turn it on!
OK, let's make sure that Linux doesn't allow users any choice in how to
do things either. Oh yeah, and lets remove all possible multi-user
functions, and make it suck at networking in large environments, and
make it nearly impossible to lock a normal user out of screwing with the
system wide configuration files, and make it so totally boneheaded that
you have to have a complete brain removal to think it's "cool" and then
remove anything the least bit usable by real users and then, maybe we
can finally have Windows beat. God, get real. We don't need to take
away all the things Linux is good at to make it better. We need to
enhance what it's good at. And as far as the log in problem, well, if
you can't handle logging in, then you probably should stick to Windows.
BTW, even Windows has a login screen by default, you have to give it a
blank password to make it disappear at boot up.
Quite honestly I'm tired of hearing people say that Linux needs to be
exactly like Windows. Ever since my early days with Linux (Debian 1.3,
Red Hat 4.2) I constantly heard from my friends all these little things
Linux needed to be "usable". Like, why couldn't the filesystem be
non-case-sensitive (like DOS), why couldn't it use drive letters instead
of the Unix /... filesystems, why can't it look just like Windows
(although some interfaces are getting this one, more's the pity), why
can't it be exactly like Windows and still be free? After all, that's
what people really want. They want a free copy of Windows, but they
also want it to be stable and be able to do anything with it they want.
These two things are completely against everything that MS believes in.
So, pirate a copy of Windows if that is what you want. But don't tell
us how much we suck because Linux isn't a complete Windows clone.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:32:26 -0500
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> Yes there were great interfaces for Windows 3.x, I particularly liked Norton
> Desktop, but when Microsoft showed the new interface of Windows 95, I knew
> that was what I was looking for. The reason that I said that Windows was
> GUI, was that unless you specially went to the trouble of initiating a
> command prompt window, you would hardly use a CLI. In the future, there will
> be no CLI for ANY computer system on the planet. One does not have to look
> too hard to realize that CLI is a dead interface. Do you see a CLI on
> Macintosh (not that it is a very user friendly operating system)? Do you see
> a CLI on a Palm? Computer Systems have evolved where the Command line is a
> throw back to when the computer was not capable of producing a graphical
> display. In the future, the operating system that we use may be some form of
> UNIX, and then again it may be some form of Windows. Who knows, and more
> importantly how cares. I do not believe that the computing future should be
> rested in the hands of one corporation, but in the hands of the people that
> use the computer systems. The computers should be as easy to use as the open
> end wrench. At this very moment, Windows fits that bill. Linux, as the very
> nature of the operating system, is positioned to fill that void where
> Windows lacks. Humans remember things graphically. They remember pictures,
> sights and sounds. Words, structure and syntax are abitrary notions that
> take quite a bit of time for anybody to remember. I have not doubt that it
> has taken you several years to learn UNIX, and that system works great for
> you. I think that if we all can put I collective heads together to create a
> better system than all current offerings combined. Linux is closer to being
> an appliance than Windows, but realiability is not the only side of the
> equation. I am sure that you do not walk to work, I am sure that either you
> use a car, or public transportation of some sort. Walking will get you there
> realiably, but it is not very enjoyable.
I don't know why I keep biting, but here we go:
What really makes you think that all command lines will disappear? Not
only do I think you are wrong on that, I think your reasoning behind it
is wrong. The people that really push systems forward are the technical
users, and technical users still want to have access to that wonderful
command line. I know, there will always be systems that don't have a
command line in them, but there will always be demand for a CLI. I for
one would hate to see a computer without any access to the command
line. There are just so many things you can do with command line based
utilities. And with scripting and pipes and various other things you
can always have something more created quickly and easily. I think you
are basing your hopes for computers in the future completely on just one
persons needs, your own. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but
don't say as a definite given something that is nothing more than
opinion. There are hundreds of thousands of Linux/Unix users out there
that left the Windows world to get a breath of fresh air and to get
access to a truly useful CLI shell. Why would they (which are usually
the creators of new shells CLI or GUI) push to eradicate one of the
things that they consider the most useful?
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:43:20 -0500
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> Games are a nice diversion from writing my formal lab report on programming
> a microcontroller and a PLD. Mostly I like things that work and do not
> require me to waste my time trying to reconfigure my system. Nor to I have
> the time learning arcane commands to make my computer work. The reason that
> I got a computer, was so that I could produce my reports, and work on some
> of my projects from class, not spend precisous time working on the computer
> to fix an incompatability. I have used many other computer systems, and I
> have come to the realization that they are all the same, but a little
> different. It is like the different languages of the world. Once you get the
> mechanics of one, you only have to learn where everything is. Somebody once
> told me that it is more important to remember where something is, than to
> remember it. After using most of the operating systems on the planet, I can
> tell you that Windows is most user friendly operating system. If somebody
> cannot figure out how to use Windows, then either they do not use computers,
> or do not think like the programmer, logically.
Here's the problem with that statement:
Some people want to do more with the computer than what it was initially
designed to do, more than what the programmer wanted them to do. In
Windows, unless you have a lot more money to shell out for a "Visual"
programming language you are screwed. And even if you do have the
money, you can't really do anything you want to with it, however, in
Linux/Unix, you can quickly get down and dirty with the system and fix
or screw up any part of it you want.
If you are happy with the system you have (Windows) great! Live it,
love it, shut up about it. We like Linux because it offers us
flexibility and power that Windows tries to keep away from us. Maybe it
isn't the most user friendly (idiot friendly) but it works for what we
want to do. So, we use what works for us, you use what works for you
and we should be able to live our lives. But don't keep coming here
telling us what complete *ssholes we are because we don't think that
Windows is perfect for everyone on the planet. No system is. Some
people will always want something different. Windows tries to be all
things to all people and leaves you wanting in several areas if you want
to customize (although my one Windows machine with LiteStep leaves
people a little flabbergasted when they see it), but we have another OS
that allows us to do what we want. So, preach to the choir (in other
words go to the Windows advocacy groups) and make some new friends.
Just don't keep telling us we don't understand computers because we
don't agree with your opinion on where they should go. We understand
computers enough to want to do things with them, maybe we don't
understand every idiot users request, but we understand our own needs.
Shouldn't that be good enough for us? Then use what is good enough for
you and leave it alone.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:48:42 -0400
Gary Heston wrote:
> According to James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >It really sounds like the person does not really know how to use a computer.
>
> Having done system/network administration for over 15 years, I think
> I've figured it out.
>
> And, every time I've run into someone who claims I don't know what I'm
> doing, they're unable to tell me what I'm doing wrong, despite repeated
> challenges.
>
> >I find administrating a Windows system much more enjoyable than UNIX or
> >Linux.
>
> If your criteria is pretending you're playing a video game (or pretending
> to admin the server while actually playing a video game) rather than getting
> something useful and reliable in place, yep. I stand by my prior statement:
Isn't there a DOOM sysadmin tool, where the jobs are monsters, and to kill
the job, you have to kill the monster?
>
>
> >> Those who have never tasted cake are satisfied with bread...
>
> Gary
>
> --
> Gary Heston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "We in the government knew when we got an email titled "ILOVEYOU" that
> something was wrong." Senator Fred Thompson quoted by ZDNet
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:02:12 -0400
>Isn't there a DOOM sysadmin tool, where the jobs are monsters, and to kill
>the job, you have to kill the monster?
Yep. I heard once in a while though, the monsters go after each other
(like in the real game) and kill each other off, hence killing off
processes.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
