Linux-Advocacy Digest #85, Volume #27 Wed, 14 Jun 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Linux Tast Test (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Boring (Terry Porter)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux.... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ("Michael Guyear")
Re: vote on MS split-up (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux.... (OSguy)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: iMacs With iTitude (David Steinberg)
Re: What's wrong with StarOffice
Re: Try Linux and see for Yourself how much it sucks. ("Rich C")
Re: iMacs With iTitude (tinman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Tast Test
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:39:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This may be the most intelligent thing Simon777 has ever said in this
group.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> For $1.99 you can try any distro you wish and draw your own
> conclusions.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:38:13 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> When you rebuild the kernel, which compiler is used? Is it not the free GNU
> C compiler that came with the system?
>
Yes, but you seem to be totally unaware of the fact the gcc allows generation
of inline assembler code. You use gcc to compile it, but the inlining of
assembler is used by the kernel to improve performance. There is also
straight assembler code in the Linux kernel which gcc never sees.
>
> As for proving nothing about, a key component, i.e. the compiler, produces
> code that runs _slower_ than Windows. I'd say that's proving something.
>
> Pete
And as has been said many times already, that says nothing about the relative
performance of Linux and Windows. There is a lot more to performance than
simply code optimization by the compiler.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 14 Jun 2000 17:38:56 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i8r2j$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Enlighten us then...
>
> > by the way, we're building a C2 certified NT configuration today, hint:
not
> > a single Compaq part in sight, guess what: it'll be the equivilent of a
C2
> > certified system. Choke on it.
>
> Being the "equivalent" of a C2 certified system is not the same thing as
> being a "C2 certified system". If you understood the process, you would
> realize this.
>
> I am now looking at the signed document that *proves* that the AIX machine
> in the next room is a *certified* B1. Its signed and everything and even
> has an embossment.
>
ahha
haha
hahahahahahahhahaha moooohahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha oh god,
please, i can't breath hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
"signed and everything and even has an embossment" hahahahahahahahaaaaa
well, here we are at: http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/epl-by-class.html
gee... tell me, which of these represents your system?
Why don't you scan in that embossment and show us... blank parts if you'd
like but lets see it - come on... it cost a LOT to get it, show it off.
Prove to us you are NOT a COMPLETELY liar on every scale.
hahahahahahaah you really made me laugh that time.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:30:38 GMT
In article <8i5v1o$9d3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Linux is a bit more flexible because
> > it has a number of simplified
> > administration tools, but it still
> > takes about 120 hours of deliberate
> > effort to really be competent to use Linux
> > effectively. I usually
> > reccomend that new users spend at least 10
> > hours/week for 90 days
> > (13 weeks) actually using Linux and learning as
> > much as they can
> > before making any final judgement.
>
> For an end-user maybe. Companies like RedHat
> have streamlined the install so much that you can
> have a functional desktop in a few hours. I on
> the other hand am a complete newbie who's
Let's see, suppose we took someone who knew nothing about
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and had
never been NEAR Windows NT Server, but perhaps knew Mac. Suppose
we had that person try to manage domain configuration, trust
relationships, PKI setup, firewalling, WINS configuration, master
browser election, and of course - troubleshooting the registry,
in just a few hours.
> suddenly been tasked with setting up Linux boxes
> for web-hosting, newsgroup serving, routing, NAT
> translation, and firewalling. I spent more than
> 100 hours just trying to comprehend httpsd.conf.
Did you at least get through the httpd.conf fairly quickly?
Bottom line, get help! Find someone who's been there. If you
ask about Linux in a room full of 30 people, at least 5 will know
enough to be helpful.
Contrary to cult myth, even the Mac wasn't totally intuitive. It
took several hours of hand-holding to get people to understand things
like "double-click", "shift-click", dragging, and dropping. It took
about 80 hours to be productive and functional with my first Mac. Of
course, most of that was waiting for the incredible woz machine to
churne through it's 15 speed 3 1/2 inch floppies to patch it's rom,
leaving about 80k of the 128k available.
The Sun 1 across the hall was WAY BETTER, but the company couldn't
afford 300 $35,000 workstations.
The point is that it's completely unrealistic to expect to be fully
proficient with ANY operating system in 20 hours. And I've seen too
many WinTrolls posting in this group, on ZDNet boards, and as "experts"
with less than 10 hours of real experience (barely enough to set the
silly thing up), who claim that they are qualified to make comparisons
between Windows NT and Linux. I suppose that since they've carved a
turkey a few times, they're qualified to do heart surgury too.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:41:37 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
> Colin Day said
> >
> > And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>
> Because you *thought* it was mounted.
I never did that accidentally, although I did it on purpose out of
curiosity. It would be an annoyance, but you're not losing data.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:42:10 -0400
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:43:03 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
> [deletia]
> >>
> >> And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
> >
> >Because you *thought* it was mounted.
>
> In which case you should get a permissions error.
Not in all cases. It just might copy.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Boring
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 15 Jun 2000 06:43:28 +0800
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:17:45 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Are you sure you weren't looking in the mirror speaking to another one
>of your schizophrenic personalities?? That would be quite consistent
>with your posting behavior on Usenet.
I wondered why the quality of COLA posts had gone up so much lately,
then I remembered I'd kill filed "Steve/Heather/Simon/Keys88" :)
>
>Perry
>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:02:55 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>This morning in fact. One of the top booksellers in the country. They
>>are mostly IBM based but have Sun and HP also as well as rack after
>>rack of Compaq Pro stuff. Linux was a miserable experience for them
>>and it has been jettisoned from their upgrade plans.
Hahahahah, bull shit.
Linux is overflowing the local bookstores now in Perth Western Ausie.
>>
>>The DP manager turned green when I asked him about Linux and went into
>>this whole dissertation about hackers, comprimised security and so
>>forth.
Hahahahah, you're full of it today Steve, the NET is UNIX, always was.
Anyone who believes a word from this tripe, from "simon" is a moron.
>>
>>Sounds like Linux made a great impression on them.
Sounds like youve missed your aluminium hydroxide pills again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:57:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:06:07 GMT,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Nobody is interested in Linux, nobody that I speak with anyway.
This wintroll only speaks to MS shrills, and then when its troll payday.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry to burst your bubble but when was the last time you actually
>>>spoke to another human being face to face?? Your "social life" over
>>>the Internet doesn't count.
>>>
>>>Perry
>>
>
>
>--
>Show the code....or hit the road.
Hahahah!
>
>
>
>Perry Piplani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 11 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:43:27 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:23:08 -0500, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><BUZZZZ> Wrong.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/MSCorp/Museum/Timelines/Microsoft/timeline.asp
>
>1980: MS XENIX
>1981: MS DOS
>1984: Mac released
>1985: Windows 1.0 Released
World Laughs.
>1986: X Windows debuts; world yawns.
>1987: Microsoft OS/2 and Windows 2.0 Released
Windows gets the innovative new feature: overlapping Windows.
>1988: Microsoft OS/2 with IBM PM released
>1990: Windows 3.0 Released
>
>-Chad
>
>
>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Gary Hallock wrote:
>>
>> > "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Does anyone know the dates?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > According to www.x.org the first commercial version of Xwindows was released
>in 1986.
>>
>> Does this predate MS Windows? I suspect so, but I want to be sure.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Gary
>>
>
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:44:13 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mistype, I had several browsers open at once. Netscape let me down
> again....
>
> Netscape, one reason why I don't run Linsux.
>
> At any rate, you found it so how about some constructive dialog
> instead of slamming my typo's....
>
> ??????????????????????????????????
>
So you cut and paste from the wrong window and you blame that on
Netscape? It's time you started accepting responsibility for your own
actions.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:44:11 -0400
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> Into a place where they can no longer be found (as is the case once the
> mount point is reattached)?
>
But you can get them back after unmounting.
>
> --
> 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."
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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, 14 Jun 2000 22:46:44 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:26:44 -0700, Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
><much additional snippage>
>
>>>>So what you're saying is that I shouldn't be an absolitist. That I
>>>>should
>>>>be like
>>>>you and think that there is NOTHING a GUI cant do.
>>>
>>>Apparently you're not interested in real discourse. That is nothing like
>>>what I said. I said that making an absolute statement about what GUIs
>>>might be able to do in the future is absurd, given the history of
>>>computing to date.
>>
>> No it isn't. If anything has been taught to us by the ACTUAL
>> history of computers is that entrenchment is king. People like
>> you will forego just about anything new or better just because
>> it is different.
>
>On the contrary, I'll look at everything new that comes along and decide
>whether it has value for me. You on the other hand appear so admanant >that nothing
>could possibly change about the GUI that would offer you
>the benefits that you insist only a CLI can provide that if someone came
>along and said they had actually built such a GUI you'd refuse to look.
>
Yet despite of this, you have to seek out particular special
purpose apps to demonstrate the utility of various attempts
to hybridize the GUI. IOW, the core GUI is still just as
lame as it always has been. You can't even point to replacements
for more general purpose parts of the GUI.
Stated willingess to choose is a bit hollow in the absense of
any choices.
[deletia]
Your counterexamples only support our skepticism.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:48:01 -0400
Jim wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
> > > Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
> > > Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
> > > filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
> > > hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
> > > directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
> > > and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
> > > but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
> > > again!
> > > Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
> > > focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
> > > of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
> > >
> >
> > And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>
> Nobody's perfect. But we _all_ like systems that give us smooth recovery
> without taking away any options.
Then just unmount and copy the files elsewhere.
>
>
> --
> Jim Naylor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Michael Guyear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:02:40 -0500
I was just making sure things were clear since my original post, on second
look, seemed to say that the two were the same.
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:34:38 -0500, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:34:12 -0500, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >True surround sound and 3d enviromental mapping are the reasons to use
a
> >SB
> >> >live card. For DVD and games a SB live card makes a big difference.
For
> >>
> >> Enviromental audio doesn't require 4 channel audio, so ultimately
> >> any soundcard should do. The real problem would be hardware
> >> acceleration and whether or not a contemporary CPU is capable of
> >> overcoming the computational overhead involved.
> >>
> >
> >Yes but surround sound is different from enviromental audio and cannot be
> >done with a standard 16 bit stereo card.
>
> ...that's why I didn't state otherwise.
>
> [deletia]
>
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:37:52 GMT
In article <8i5f99$vig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Clear, cogent, relevant, and understandable to anyone...
>
> You're not from around here, are you?
Actually, I've posted over 20 articles a week (average) for
nearly 15 years. I was on usenet back when we used uucp
over 1200 baud dial-ups.
My personal archive (my postings and responses to them) on
mailing lists, newsgroups, and message centers like ZDNet
total over 10,000 pages. I keep thinking I'd like to turn
it into a book some day, but that would mean reporting on the
past when I'd rather be causing the future.
If anybody WANTS to take on the past, I'd be willing to
collaborate!
> [quote snipped to appease the SAN gods]
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux....
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:08:59 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] trolled:
> Essentially he is saying, you have the framework, now you can use ELF
> to write your own Office Suite.
>
> Great for the geeks out there, but you might as well throw a secretary
> a copy of a C++ compiler and tell her to roll her own office suite.
MS throws secretaries Visual Basic, and tells "her to roll her own office
suite."
And talking about VB, the article states "Don't make the mistake of
regarding ELF as the equivalent of Visual Basic (VB) script in Microsoft
Office. VB script is a pathetic excuse for a language that was bolted
onto Office as an afterthought".
I'll use Applixware 5.0 anytime over MS Office 2000 simply because I can
do much more with Applixware, without all the crashes of Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:50:42 -0400
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:03:35 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
> >> Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
> >> Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
> >> filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
> >> hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
> >> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
> >> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
> >> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
> >> again!
> >> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
> >> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
> >> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
> >>
> >
> >And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>
> ...and would you even have the permission to do so?
An ordinary user would only have such permission for removable
media, but it could happen.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 14 Jun 2000 22:53:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've given all the details and you've given none. Go ahead, prove to us
> exactly where plugging in a microphone invalidates a C2 rating. I CHALLENGE
> YOU TO DO THIS. If you cannot (and you made the claim, not me) than you are
> a liar and a fool.
Actually, I gave alot of the details of certs C through A in a post a few
months ago for the benefit of a certian crossposted group. As I recall,
you thanked me for the details (of course, you didnt know it was me because
you wouldnt know headers if they were chewing on your scrotum). But
at the time, I wasnt disagreeing with you directly.
I didnt say that plugging a microphone into a C2 machine would invalidate
its C2 certification. I asked you if you were telling me that plugging
a microphone into a C2 machine resulted in a consistent certification--in
this case, an NT4.0 C2 machine.
And again, you are doing a great job of not comprehending anything at all.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 14 Jun 2000 22:54:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Youve misunderstood what that paragraph means, dresden, likely because
>> youve never been involved with computer security to this degree.
>>
>> "Custom" does not mean the same thing as "specific". You need "specific"
>> hardware to gain a C2 certification for WinNT 4.0, but not "custom".
>>
>> In short, you're an idiot.
>>
> <SNIP completely fucking stupid shit>
> abraxas you are moron, total died in the wool completely pathetic moron.
> You've answer NOTHING, you've dodged around in syntax and words but answer
> nothing. You have no facts, you provide no documents, you don't even pretend
> to try to create lies to masquierade as facts. you can't even pretend to be
> smart you are so amazingly stupid.
Wow, thats one hell of an argument you have there. Chock full o facts, yep.
> in short, you exist as something lower than a cumstain on some motel
> sheet... go away.
Theres some more of that fact-filled argument.
> prove how a laptop cannot be C2 certified?
> prove how plugging in a microphone into a C2 certified system invalidates
> the certification?
And here we have the obligatory dresden posturing challenges, designed to
divert attention from his own display of ignorance...
Which somehow never seems to work.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:56:41 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:42:10 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:43:03 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >>
>> >> And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>> >
>> >Because you *thought* it was mounted.
>>
>> In which case you should get a permissions error.
>
>Not in all cases. It just might copy.
jedi@dementia /tmp >cp *txt /cdrom
cp: cannot create regular file `/cdrom/LICENCE.txt': Permission denied
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: 14 Jun 2000 22:59:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: >/mnt/cdrw and /mnt/cdrom. At least that's how it would work on this
: >guy's system. Oh, and it would likely be /mnt/cdrom/Fred\ The\ Cat.
: Yawn..under Windows you need not concern yourself with such tripe.
That's right. It's easy to access your CD-ROM on Windows -- it's D:
...until you add a new hardrive, or re-partition, then suddenly it's E:,
and things start breaking. Yes, having the system arbitrarily assign
"drive letters" is a brilliant way of allowing access to disks. It
doesn't at all seem out of place on a system with 8.3 filenames.
And then there was the time that Windows (98 SE, for your
information) decided to give one partition three different drive
letters! I couldn't figure out why until I booted into Linux and
discovered that Windows' fdisk had overlapped two partitions, starting one
before the end of another. (Remember kids, Windows is easy to install!)
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with StarOffice
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:53:43 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I just wish that Postscript (or even TrueType) would work
> on Linux.
What? X has support for Postscript fonts, both, I can hadle type-1 fonts in
either PFA or PFB format either directly or through the standard X font
server. There is a TrueType font server also available for X. I believe
that the newer versions of xf-86 will have support for TrueType fonts built
in.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Try Linux and see for Yourself how much it sucks.
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:05:31 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.cheapbytes.com at $1.99 will get you started.
>
>
> Make certain you back up everything first though because Linux like
> the VIRUS it is tries to take over your system.
> It WILL erase your data.......
.........only if you're a complete moron and tell it to partition your
entire hard drive.......
>
> Let us know how you fair..........
>
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:06:49 -0400
In article <8i8vk4$p67$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The second disk would be called "My Photos (2)" if memory serves (my
> > > last "Mac" was a PowerBase 180), and your AppleScript would fail
> > > miserably.
> >
> > I don't think memory's serving, I just renamed my HD to match a CD, no
> > problems, and no (2). I dunno whether a script would fail....
>
> Well the Desktop/OS obviously uses something other than the volume label to
> identify disks (at the mounting level, at least). My bet's on the
> interface:disk IDs.
>
> Hmm, what happens to aliases on one drive pointing to another if you change
> the interface:disk ID and/or the voume name *from somewhere else except the
> running OS* ?
I'm pretty sure they break. Sort of the same operation, and it's been a
while, but if memory serves if you change the Appletalk name of a
workstation, aliases stored on a Novell server will not be able to find
their targets on that workstation if the novell volume wasn't mounted when
you changed the name.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
